Comments on: Media Balance

By: Howard Altman

Howard Altman — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:51:21 +0000

For what it’s worth, I am the reporter who witnessed the Greyhound bus driver rip down the sign. I didn’t think it emblematic of Republicans, just an interesting event taking place right in front of me. As an editor and writer, I do know that raw material is raw for a reason. And that there are editors for a reason. Howard

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:41:14 +0000

it’s hard to look at the NYT’s Whitewater “reporting” and not conclude it has (or at least had for many many years) a pro-Republican bent. Does Harper’s Magazine (under Lewis Lapham’s reign) have “a pro-Republican bent”? They published some rather harsh material about Whitewater in the pre-Newt era (before November of 1994). I remember one “investigative” article whose author breathlessly reported having been conked on the head and deprived of his notes by persons unknown, while looking into Clinton’s alleged ‘80’s-era corruption in Arkansas. You see, back in the early nineties, the left viewed Clinton not as a lone, brave bulwark against ruthless Congressional Republicans, but rather as a centrist sellout who was squandering the Democratic Party’s complete control of all branches of the federal government. To them, he was the president who had abandoned Lani Guinier, gays in the military, and single-payer health care for the sake of personal political expediency. If Harper’s and the New York Times were raising a stink about Whitewater back then, a “pro-Republican tilt” had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

By: Anno-nymous

Anno-nymous — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:57:35 +0000

The Times fixed it, but in their original post of the “High turnout” article it said something along the lines of “Experts expect that turnout in this election could be very high, perhaps surpassing the 105 million who voted in 2000, or 51% of the voting age population.” link

By: Blar

Blar — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:30:52 +0000

This voter with a sympathetic job is voting for Kerry because of his health care plan. “I just think we need a new direction,” she says. This other voter hasn’t voted in 20 years, but she’s shown up today to vote for Kerry too. You may be wondering: aren’t there any Bush supporters? Sure, there’s one right over there tearing down a Kerry sign. Anecdotes, when used well, should be a microcosm of the facts. When the facts are balanced the anecdotes should be balanced, and when the facts are imbalanced the anecdotes should be imbalanced in the same way. Today, there are nearly equal numbers of Kerry and Bush voters, and there is no evidence that more Kerry signs are being torn down, so a fair article should not mention two nice Kerry voters and then contrast them with a jerk who is “supporting” Bush by tearing down a Kerry sign. Especially if the two sides are explicitly compared with a sentence like “Bush supporters were also out.”

By: BadTux

BadTux — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:04:56 +0000

I’ve run into this on a personal basis. I’ve had arguments with newspaper editors that they’re according lies and the truth the same amount of column inches in their papers (this was about local issues). Their response: “We’re just reporting what X said about issue Y.” Journalists no longer feel that their duty to the public is to uncover the truth and report it. Their job now is to be transcriptionists, reporting what persons X and Y said about issue Z with no attempt to uncover the truth about issue Z. While there has always been a tendency on the part of reporters to act as transcriptionists to those in power, this trend has reached frightening proportions over the past 20 years. Part of this is because of right-wing intimidation—reporters and editors who dare report that person Y is a liar get their butts sued off, and even though the lawsuits get dismissed in court, it put many smaller newspapers out of business due to the costs of litigation or the costs of liability insurance to protect against the costs of litigation, meaning that editors and reporters are now much more cautious. And part of it is simply sheer laziness. It’s easier to just do “he said/she said” “reporting” than to actually dig up the real facts and report those. Either way, the gospel truth is that journalism in America is sick, sick, sick, sick, and it is unclear whether there is anything we can do to return it to being a profession where its practitioners are seekers of truth, rather than transcriptionists for those in power. – Badtux the Disgusted Penguin

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:24:35 +0000

I’m not sure that I buy the Whitewater thing as being against the ‘left-wing media bias’ understanding. The media has a hierarchy of biases. The top one is sensationalism. One of the next two or three is a liberal storyline. But sensationalism trumps even the liberal storyline bias in most cases. Hence a story about possible fraud and insider trading by the Clintons trumps the fact that the story was hurting Democrats.

By: coinneach

coinneach — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:21:56 +0000

I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if newspapers—or other news organizations—dropped all of their pretensions to impartiality and instead declared their partisan leanings outright. It’s happened before—coverage of the Jefferson-Adams presidential election was found in papers with ‘Federalist’ and ‘Republican’ in the titles. And why not? Can there truly be unbiased news? If not, as I’d suggest, then perhaps the news organizations should announce their leanings and let the readers/listeners take everything with a grain of salt.

By: coinneach

coinneach — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:20:41 +0000

By: coinneach

coinneach — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:18:36 +0000

I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if newspapers—or other news organizations—dropped all of their pretensions to impartiality and instead declared their partisan leanings outright. Coverage of the Jefferson-Adams presidential election was found in papers with ‘Federalist’ and ‘Republican’ in the titles. Can there truly be unbiased news? If not, as I’m suggesting, then perhaps the news organizations should announce their leanings and let the readers/listeners take everything with a grain of salt.

By: coinneach

coinneach — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:18:03 +0000

I sometimes wonder if we would be better off if newspapers—or other news organizations—dropped all of their pretensions to impartiality and instead declared their partisan leanings outright. Coverage of the Jefferson-Adams presidential election was found in papers with ‘Federalist’ and ‘Republican’ in the titles. Can there truly be unbiased news? If not, as I’m suggesting, then perhaps the news organizations should announce their leanings and let the readers/listeners take everything with a grain of salt.

By: mona

mona — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:59:08 +0000

At first, I too thought like Bob McManus, why shouldn’t she report what she sees? she’s drawing no conclusions, it’s just an anecdote. But, let’s be honest, that’s a bit naive. The editor has to worry about how an article is being read, not just about how it’s being written. People reading it will know already that ripping down posters and lawn signs is a sport practiced by supporters of both parties, so that sentence in the article will stand out and inevitably the reader will assume the writer is trying to make a point about Republicans being thugs. Even if those weren’t her intentions. Imagine someone reading that phrase after hearing that Katherine Harris got nearly run down by some idiot in a car who was still angry for Florida 2000. Ripping a poster would have looked totally innocent by comparison. I think she was simply trying to show how people feel strongly about the elections. The editor should have suggested a counter-example of similar behaviour from people in the other camp, not “quotes by Republicans”, that indeed sounds weird. Like others said, the point about the lazy man’s view of “unbiased” is fair, but this doesn’t seem a very strong example.

By: Michael Blowhard

Michael Blowhard — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:47:30 +0000

Bob – Reporters on assignments see literally an infinite number of things. How and why to highlight the very finite number of them that’ll wind up in the published story, that’s the question.

By: Michael Blowhard

Michael Blowhard — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:46:20 +0000

Bob – Reporters on assignments see literally an infinite number of things. How and why to highlight the very finite number of them that’ll wind up in the published story, that’s the question.

By: Michael Blowhard

Michael Blowhard — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:44:15 +0000

Bob – Reporters on assignments see literally an infinite number of things. How and why to highlight the very finite number of them that’ll wind up in the published story, that’s the question.

By: Michael Blowhard

Michael Blowhard — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:41:43 +0000

Brian—I really don’t know what to say to people who argue with the notion that the American media (generally, exceptions allowed for, etc etc), and especially the NYTimes, don’t have a slightly-left take on things. I work in the biz, have done so for 25 years, and yes of course most people in the biz have a slightly-left bias. I don’t think that this is a bad thing, although it’s certainly worth taking into account. But I also don’t know why anyone would waste energy denying it either. BTW, here’s a Slate piece. Writer spent a few days wearing a “Bush” t-shirt in leftyville, then a “Kerry” tshirt in rightieville. Interesting results. http://slate.msn.com/id/2108561