Beware of Biased Reporters Seeking a Specific Angle to Their Story
Reporting seems to have changed with more reporters being biased rather than unbiased. In the past, reporters sought the truth and were open to the facts, wherever they led. That no longer appears to be the norm. That’s what we might expect in a perfect world, but in this divided nation, reporters are sometimes told what to seek and what conclusion they must reach. Newspapers of national record often seem dedicated to ousting President Trump or exposing the National Rifle Association. They rarely devote as much space to the good accomplishments.
To over-weight facts in one direction or another, they will often list dollar figures without a time frame, or they will use partial quotes without context. For instance, a reporter criticizing the CEO of the NRA will cite a generous clothing allowance but will not say if it was for a 20- to 30-year period not a single year. The reporter may cite a percentage increase in salary for one year but not the average increase for several years.
As for using partial quotes, I recall an interview once held by a liberal reporter with the Executive Director of the Numismatic Literary Guild (NLG) several years ago, when a reporter asked if the Guild was giving out “too many awards.” The CEO said, in what he thought was an affable manner, “Well, some people say we give out too many awards, and some people say we give out too few.” The reporter cut that sentence in half, using a statement: “CEO Admits Numismatic Literary Guild ‘Gives Out Too Many Awards.’” My friend then challenged the use of that seemingly unethical partial quote, but the newspaper’s lawyers said that “an exact partial quote is legal,” even though it goes against the full meaning of the complete sentence!
Any kindergarten child knows that was “unfair”. Bear that in mind the next time you read an article quoting facts, figures or even “direct quotations.”
One recent example is the polar opposite position taken by The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal on a Second Amendment case currently before the Supreme Court. The Post sides with the four liberal judges saying that the case should be thrown out (as moot), while The Journal sides with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. This underlines the importance of hearing both sides of a case – something not possible when reading only one source.
Trackbacks
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as Linear | Threaded