(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

Bias Is the Story That They Try to Dig Up
09/27/2003

With the "true stories" — which is to say, those presenting hopeful news along with realistic handling of the bad — making their way, inevitable in these days, to the American people, I've noticed the media types starting to make the usual exculpatory noises. "Oh, well it's not bias," they say. "It's just that we, by our nature, tend to seek out the shocking and, yes, often negative stories."

Somewhere or other, I recently heard or read somebody suggesting that what is happening with coverage of Iraq is akin to what one sees in the local newspaper: mostly death and controversy. Give that some thought — not theoretically, but to your own experience. I've been in local and not-so-local papers a handful of times in my life, and I'm neither dead nor the subject of controversy (at least not controversy that I'm important enough to make newsworthy). The truth is that local and not-so-local newspapers are full of good stories of achievements, and many stories that are about controversy present at least one side as doing something good.

No, I'm convinced that there's a bias, whether subconscious or not, that wants the storyline of the current war to be one that conveniently aligns with a political viewpoint. To simplify: if reporters liked the President, The Iraq Story would be one of perseverance in the face of fanaticism, of modernism sparking in the nation despite the hard, sand-streaked wind of the desert. But the storyline that we are getting — that people are saying is to the detriment of the truth — is quite different.

Let's take Iraq out of the question. Some of the statements articles about a Census report that was just released inspire head shakes and perhaps even spit-up beverages. Here's the opening paragraph of the Reuters piece, titled "34.6 Million U.S. People in Poverty in 2002 - Report," that appeared in the Washington Post:

More than 1.7 million people in the United States slid into poverty in 2002 and incomes slipped for the second year in a row, the U.S. government said on Friday in a report sure to provide new ammunition for Democrats trying to unseat President Bush.

Since Reuters doesn't offer any indication about whether the report ought to "provide new ammunition," I think it reasonable to give the newswire a pop quiz: What year is it, today? Why, it's 2003 — almost 2004 — and the economic news has been improving for months. In fact, the only mention in the entire piece about the current state of the economy is in the context of the Bush administration's spin of the report.

Elsewhere in the article, Reuters earns my vote for most biased single word choice:

A sluggish recovery has failed to create new jobs for the 3.3 million private sector employees who have been thrown out of work since Bush took office in January 2001.

Note the imagery — certain to call up images of the administration forcibly ripping people from their desks. Like a secret police tossing people into the street and "throwing" them into jail.

The AP article that appeared in the Providence Journal, although its title, "Poverty Rate Rises for Second Year in Row," leaves out that the "second year" is long over, offered more information, including statements that poverty and unemployment generally continue to worsen in the year after recovery begins. However, it also offered more "explanation" about why the problem is current:

Bill Spriggs, director of research and public policy at the National Urban League, said the numbers were frightening. "This may become one of the worst downturns in income in 30 years," he said. "We see that people are digging themselves deeper into poverty because the economy is not generating jobs."

We are also informed that "the numbers were fodder for President Bush's aides to call for enactment of virtually his entire domestic and economic agenda." And the Democrats are given yet another blind swing for a controversy:

Even before the data was made public, House Democrats charged the Bush administration was trying to hide bad economic news by releasing the numbers on a Friday when people are paying more attention to the upcoming weekend. In previous years, the estimates were released on a Tuesday or Thursday.

"Sounds like they're trying to bury the numbers where people won't find them," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. "This is another clear example of political manipulation of data by the Bush administration to avoid the glare of public scrutiny about the country's worsening economy."

At least the report ends with the rebuttal from Census Bureau spokesman Larry Neal that, because these numbers will be "rehashed" for the entire year to come, "The notion that we should, could or would suppress these numbers doesn't pass the laugh test."

All in all, I'm seeing reasons for hope that change is possible, at least for the AP; the news services are businesses, after all. (It seems as if the headline writers will be the last to turn.) But it'll take a long time and much balanced coverage before I'll believe the "media likes bad news" line again. And I've permanently written off Reuters; check out this subsequent headline: "Poverty Up Second Year on Bush's Watch."

Posted by Justin Katz @ 12:25 AM EST