August 19, 2005
Fair AND Biased Coverage Sought
I want bias in news coverage. That doesn’t mean I want partisan spin filtered through some orthodoxy. But fairness is possible without cowering from any bias. Avoiding all bias fails to inform us.
News agencies’ proclivity to avoid bias is particularly annoying when covering stories which have not been in the headlines, until some recent event brings them to our attention.
When reading of stories involving foreign governments and resistance movements, invariably I want to know something about the evidence of the historic culpability of the various parties for violence and oppression. But what to me are the most obvious questions to ask, frequently go unanswered even in a multi-column article, I presume in the name of avoiding bias.
Sadly, I fear it is often pretty accurate to assume that there is a lot of culpability on all sides. The good and decent people of the foreign land are usually rendered powerless by the corrupt and powerful few, both in the government and in the resistance movements. But I also know there are some exceptions, and I think it is important to know about them. Unfortunately, the typical news story simply identifies the players, who is winning, and sometimes if we're lucky the putative ideology of the sides in question, though I know to take that with a grain of salt as well.
A classic example in yesterday's news is the story of the release of POWs by the Polisario Front independence movement for Western Sahara to the government of Morocco. I've long followed geography enough to have been aware that over two decades ago, Morocco annexed its southern neighbor Western Sahara, formerly controlled by Spain, in spite of a desire among some for independence. So I suspect that Morocco abused its power in annexing its southern neighbor. I also suspect that the Polisario Front's leaders have hardened into bellicose ideologues. Perhaps this news indicates some softening, though more likely it's just resignation to the impossibility of their cause. There is little that I can discern however from the ten paragraphs from Reuters which appeared in my local rag. U.S. mediators seem to have played a role in the release. Kofi Anan welcomed the release and hopes it presages better relations. The final paragraph is most telling:
Statements by Morocco and the Polisario Front showed that years of diplomatic mediation have not ended their mutual hostility.But I still don't know what to believe about the various parties beyond my guesses going in. The second page of the article, which I found on-line, was only marginally more helpful, as it confined itself to the statements of the parties directly involved.
I went to O.T. Ford's Political Status of the States of the Earth, a document which I admire for its breadth, and which I trust based on the mission of its author. But one person can only do so much, and given the breadth of coverage all we learn of Morocco is:
The recent succession has had some liberalizing effects, but the state remains a traditional monarchy. ’Islāmists have made the most dramatic gains in elections for a consultative assembly. Ruled by محمد Muham:ad VI.and he red codes the country, essentially giving it a failing grade for democratic governance. Ford's approach may be simplistic, not accounting for all the gray between extremes, but in a brief sentence about each nation, we get a greater sense of where it falls in representing its people than most news agency articles manage in multiple paragraphs.
Similarly, recent articles about the truce pact in tsunami ravaged Aceh province of Sumatra, Indonesia, are long on the dry facts and short on context. Once again, journalists fail us in the name of balance.
Posted by Walker Willingham at August 19, 2005 05:33 PMWalker:
I think all news media is biased in some direction. I don’t mind it, because I try to access different outlets so that I end up with a multiple bias. Since the varying biases tend to counter each other, I end up with a better version of the actual event.
For instance, if i were to listen to Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, I’d know the “truth” would be somewhere in the middle. Those who think it lies at either end of the spectrum are fools, in my opinion.
By looking at a variety of outlets, it allows me a broader range of ideas, and an openness to ideas that I may not have thought of or ideas that I disagree with. Even in disagreement, I find I learn more about what the outlet thinks, or what a writer thinks. It helps me formulate my opinions more completely.
As a great minstrel once warbled, “Live and learn, from fools and from sages”.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 19, 2005 07:28 PMJoe-
I don’t think the truth is necessarily between Moore and Rush. It’s wherever it happens to be, especially in directions neither of them have figured out, or resting in one camp or the other.
jbod,
For the much discussed issues, you are right. There is no shortage of bias, reporting, and opinion from which to draw one’s own conclusions. But for those stories that only get mentioned in passing, the outlets reporting them tend to adopt a “stick to the current facts” mode, which leaves the reader somewhat more informed, but otherwise unenlightened. Take someone like Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe for instance. I know he’s a despot of monstrous proportions, as does anyone who’s been paying attention to Zimbabwe. But you won’t generally find him matter of factly referred to as such in news articles, because that would be injecting opinion. In depth pieces are a different story, but where there is not depth, I would appreciate more frank reporting. Even if it is wrong, generating controversy would help expose truths that remain swept under the carpet otherwise.
Posted by: Walker at August 19, 2005 11:30 PMI agree with everybody, but in different ways.
Stephen is right that the truth probably does not lie somewhere between two extremes. Sometimes it is someplace else and sometimes even the extremist is right.
I also agree with Walker, but I think it is even worse. Journalists are often biased in favor or dictators. CNN’s Eason Jordan admitted that his organization had shaded the news in Saddam’s favor because they wanted to continue reporting in safety. This was very often the case in the old Soviet Union too. After the fall of the empire, it was amazing to watch journalists and pundit scramble to cover their earlier cravenness.
On the other hand, journalists know that there is no significant penalty for reporting negatively about democratic leaders and their “fairness” idea might make them want to do just that. Imagine the coverage of the battle between God and Satan reported by CNN. Satan, with his clever one-liners and feeling of persecution would certainly get the better press on the ethereal plain.
And I agree with Jack that journalists as a practical matter often pull their punches in order to retain their access. This happens on a sliding scale - the more that access is denied based on reporting, the more tempted is the journalist to hold back their sharpest criticisms.
Now Jack and those with Republican leanings likely think that I and other liberally leaning folk are overwrought to say so, but it is very clear to me that this is exactly why the MSM is as soft as it is on the Bush Administration. Helen Thomas in interviews indicates this administration is worse than Nixon in terms of secrecy and its control of the press, and in fact Thomas lost her long-standing access to the President because she was unwilling to pull her punches.
No we are not close to the appalling levels of corruption that were associated with the likes of Saddam, Mao, Mugabe, Pinochet, Amin, Duvalier, or d’Aubisson, but for my beloved country the level of corruption, secrecy, and frankly lack of respect for human life that is obviously exhibited by much of the current Republican leadership in both the White House and in Congress, especially the House, is jaw-droppingly disturbing.
That is why some time ago, I declared blessed are the alternative newsmakers. Cindy Sheehan is a perfect example of such an alternative newsmaker. No, she doesn’t have particular expertise in global politics, or have the ability to predict the complex ramifications of what American withdrawal from Iraq would mean (who does?). But she created a story that the media had an excuse to follow, because they’re too #@!& timid to expose the truth of this administrations grossly immoral deceptions in plain terms on their own. That is why I honor her courage regardless of whether or not an immediate pullout is the best course.
Posted by: Walker at August 20, 2005 04:16 AMWalker, the sad fact is, most journalists only have a vague idea of what they’re talking about, and regarding Morocco and Aceh, most Americans couldn’t care less (and probably couldn’t find either location on a globe).
Posted by: American Pundit at August 21, 2005 08:39 AMIn fact, one of the US correspondents (Roger Mitton) for my local paper pisses me off every day. This guy reports on American politics, and for context, goes to the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
The guy obviously has no contacts among government officials, but the right-wing think tanks are always happy to chat. You can imagine the spin on American politics that Singaporeans get. Ugh.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 21, 2005 08:46 AMWalker
I don’t disagree about the usefulness of being in power, but I don’t think it is a particularly Republican thing. The White House has a great influence on the news cycle, who gets news and how it is reported. Bush uses it when he can, but it is not his strong point. The Clinton folks were really masters. I watched with awe and admiration how they dribbled out information or leaked exaggerated innuendo ABOUT THEMSELVES and then attacked the other side for exaggerated attacks.
I think that the Bush Administration actually has the opposite problem. They are not proactive enough with the media. The WSJ had an article on Friday about the economy. The economy is great. But the Bush Administration won’t or properly can’t get the message out. It lets its opponents spin the news to make a 5% unemployment rate seem bad or two years of growth look inadequate. The Bushies also don’t deal with their opponents well.
The Clinton guys would have neutralized someone like Cindy Sheehan in a matter of hours. In fact, they would have preempted her as soon as they figured out she was a threat. The perfect President would be Bush’s ideals with Clinton’s execution in PR.
I think the perfect President would be much, much closer to Clinton with Bob Dole’s problem (ED.)
Posted by: tony at August 21, 2005 11:36 AMTony
A little off topic, but Clinton was a victim of early success. He never expected to win in 1992 – and he would not have without Ross Perot’s entry. If he had “seasoned” for four or eight more years (and let some parts soften up), he could have been a great president. Unfortunately, he was only good.
