"A Matter of Emphasis"
Media Bias
| April 30, 2003
| Tim
Last week, FrontLine run a program about the administration's reasons for going to war. Apparently, part of the source material was -- ABC News? Yesterday's New York Times ran an editorial by Paul Krugman in which he cites the article again. And over at Tacitus, conservative war supporters seem to act downcast, as though the Bush administration had just admitted to lying about WMD.
The whole thing stems from a single report from ABC by a single journalist, quoting a single anonymous source, repeating but a single sentence, out of context:
"We were not lying, but it was just a matter of emphasis."
A good portion of the media is one this one, claiming "vindication" over this? Admitting that 9/11 lit a fire under the administration to deal with the Iraq issue rather than let it slide some more?
Before we go too far with our speculations, let's consider the source for this out-of-context quote. In the past, author John Cochrane:
- In 1997 covered flooding in the midwest thusly: "Flood victims in Grand Forks do not understand why Republican leaders refuse to pass an aid bill without strings attached." (For "victims", he cited a single guy.)
- In 1998 was cited by the non-partisan Media Monitor for on-air comments biased against conservative candidates while interpreting mid-term election poll results.
- Caused a bit of a flap during the 2000 presidential campaign by throwing a party for Al and Tipper Gore -- at time when ABC had placed him in charge of covering the Gore campaign!
- Recently produced another "unsourced" estimate predicting the cost of the war between $50 and $100 billion dollars.
We're not talking an exactly impartial reporter, folks.
Furthermore, while I can understand one reporter going with an unnamed source, I'm concerned about the rest of the media's tendancy to act as though that were actual reliable evidence of something. How do we know he's not making it up, distorting his source's intended meaning, or exaggerating his or her position within the administration?
We don't.
It seems we're on rather shaky grounds here, journalistically.
I say we all admit that journalism is essentially dead. We don't have journalism anymore, we have "News Analysis". And "News Analysis" is a more efficent way of saying "My opinion of events that may or may not have actually happened." The way these guys present "facts", they make slimly trial lawyers look absolutely saintly!
Journalism Rule #1: If your source won't go on the record, they aren't credible and they likely have an agenda.
"But Steve, maybe they fear repercussions"
They don't want to go on the record? Then they have to provide proof of what they say. Otherwise, no story.
Journalism Rule #2: Don't get used by sources.
"But if I don't print it, someone else will..."
Journalism Rule #3: If you are more worried about getting scooped than being accurate and checking your facts, you aren't a journalist. You are a gossip columnist. Make sure that's how you sign your byline...Joe Writer, Gossip Columnist.
You know I wish I could avoid putting the media into the liberal or conservative camps, but it doesn't seem possible these days.
So knowing that, it appears more evident everyday that those journalists (News Analysts? Gossip Columnists?) with a liberal bias, who consistently end up on the wrong side of history, are hell-bent on somehow saving face, rather than admit they were wrong...and there isn't much they aren't willing to do.
Apparently this includes making up sources, citing each other as sources, and generalizing one person's opinion as that of a majority of people(though only when consistent with their own).
And they present their case whith such authority that even some conservatives are inclined to believe them. Amazing...
These folks don't admit that deposing Sadam Hussein was the right thing to do. They say nothing about the serious human rights violations that occurred. And they can't admit that they were wrong about the costs of the war or the rate of success we achieved ("We"="America"...their country too).
Instead they fabricate stories, find ways to bash an Administration they didn't want, emphasize anything that could be made to justify their position, and write or report about all negative potentialities.
They might as well start each piece or newscast with the following statement:
"No matter what you've hear or think, this war was still a bad idea, and things will still probably end up badly. Today in Iraq..."
With all the hand-wringing these guys do about how anything the Administration does will end up badly, I wonder how big a vat of Vaseline they keep in the newsroom.
Why can't they just report? Seems like it would be a lot easier...
Great piece of investigative journalism!
Linking...
Readers please note: Steve was trained as a journalist.
Steve:
If you are the author of "Woman boxer dies in ring, punched on the head," your story spoils the ending of “Million Dollar Baby,” a film I was looking forward to, until I read your piece. I thought this was the sort of irresponsible journalism only those with liberal bias could be accused of. I guess there are conservative idiots too.
Anonymous person,
Steve is not currently working as a journalist. There is no article like the one you mentioned anywhere on this blog. Nor does it have anything to do with the article above, which was written long before the movie you mentioned was produced.
Please have some sense of context before posting.
Also, if you are planning to see a movie, and do not want to hear comments which might spoil it, then don't read reviews of it beforehand.
Just common sense, you understand.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« A Ready-Made Theocracy for Bush |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Sudan: France's Latest Human-Rights Example »
|
I say we all admit that journalism is essentially dead. We don't have journalism anymore, we have "News Analysis". And "News Analysis" is a more efficent way of saying "My opinion of events that may or may not have actually happened." The way these guys present "facts", they make slimly trial lawyers look absolutely saintly!
Journalism Rule #1: If your source won't go on the record, they aren't credible and they likely have an agenda.
"But Steve, maybe they fear repercussions"
They don't want to go on the record? Then they have to provide proof of what they say. Otherwise, no story.
Journalism Rule #2: Don't get used by sources.
"But if I don't print it, someone else will..."
Journalism Rule #3: If you are more worried about getting scooped than being accurate and checking your facts, you aren't a journalist. You are a gossip columnist. Make sure that's how you sign your byline...Joe Writer, Gossip Columnist.
You know I wish I could avoid putting the media into the liberal or conservative camps, but it doesn't seem possible these days.
So knowing that, it appears more evident everyday that those journalists (News Analysts? Gossip Columnists?) with a liberal bias, who consistently end up on the wrong side of history, are hell-bent on somehow saving face, rather than admit they were wrong...and there isn't much they aren't willing to do.
Apparently this includes making up sources, citing each other as sources, and generalizing one person's opinion as that of a majority of people(though only when consistent with their own).
And they present their case whith such authority that even some conservatives are inclined to believe them. Amazing...
These folks don't admit that deposing Sadam Hussein was the right thing to do. They say nothing about the serious human rights violations that occurred. And they can't admit that they were wrong about the costs of the war or the rate of success we achieved ("We"="America"...their country too).
Instead they fabricate stories, find ways to bash an Administration they didn't want, emphasize anything that could be made to justify their position, and write or report about all negative potentialities.
They might as well start each piece or newscast with the following statement:
"No matter what you've hear or think, this war was still a bad idea, and things will still probably end up badly. Today in Iraq..."
With all the hand-wringing these guys do about how anything the Administration does will end up badly, I wonder how big a vat of Vaseline they keep in the newsroom.
Why can't they just report? Seems like it would be a lot easier...
Posted by: Steve Walters on May 1, 2003 10:19 AM