The Average Man

Sunday, July 15, 2007

WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF BIAS?

If you've been following the goings-on at the Santa Barbara News-Press over the last year, you know that Wendy McCaw loves to state that the 50 journalists who have quit or been fired were forced to leave due to the fact that Wendy herself is on a mission to purge "bias" from the paper. During the first few months following "Black Thursday," Ms. McCaw would constantly point to the Mori Survey, which suggests a majority of News-Press readers think the paper contains some sort of bias. More recently, Wendy has been referencing a PBS Frontline series called News War. In her latest rant against Lou Cannon, she states the following ...

The PBS series evidences the distrust the public has today for your formerly sacred "journalists." It does not trust them for the very reason I deemed it necessary to take action to ensure that the news was reported fairly and accurately: Your brand of reporters write what they want, when they want. That is not good journalism. That is not in keeping with the tenants of fairness and integrity. Simply put, that is the reason changes were needed at the News-Press.

This statement is, of course, absurd coming from a woman who prints front page articles force feeding the reader her point of view but never EVER posts anything critical of the NP. But others much smarter than myself have covered this ground already, so I'm not going to do it here. Rather, I would like to discuss what I, and others, believe to be the major flaw in McCaw's thinking ... she's not talking about the same bias.

Does the public think journalists are biased? Yes, they do, and that's a problem. But the bias in question is a left/right bias. The majority of Americans think the media leans left. And it will come as no surprise to you that I think otherwise. Conservatives hate the media, because it's the media's job to expose corruption and question power. Thus, the right has spent the last couple of decades convincing Americans that the media is liberal. And it worked. The media is now so paranoid of being "perceived" as liberal that they will no longer dig deep into any issue that is critical of the right. If you need proof of this, look no further than the fact that 70% of U.S. citizens believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that most of the population still believes there's a scientific debate about global warming. This phenomenon also explains the strange belief that Fox News is center.

If this was the cause for which Wendy McCaw was fighting, I would certainly take notice. But her mission to expunge bias is a red herring. Like every argument she makes, she throws around accusations like a game of dodge ball but never provides any proof. The only time she's actually given any evidence of bias that I know of is when Anna Davison's editor was asked to reprimand her for biased reporting. When asked to give examples of bias in one of Ms. Davison's stories, McCaw produced the following two gems:

1) Anna quoted Mayor Marty Blum too many times.

2) Anna never brought up the (non-existent) debate about the chopping down of trees on lower State Street. When this issue was researched by her editor, he discovered that the only person talking about this supposed controversy was Travis Armstrong in the NP's own editorial pages.

The tree thing is so idiotic that I won't even go there, but I guess the Marty Blum issue could theoretically be argued as a matter of bias. But to do that, Wendy needed to actually bring up the content of the Blum quotes and then explain how Ms. Davison had somehow slanted the story to appear a certain way. But, no, the bias was simply in the very act of quoting the mayor. The Wendy/Travis/Nipper axis of evil hate Marty Blum so much that simply writing down her words is out of bounds.

So, my conclusion in all this is that Wendy McCaw is certainly not using the term bias in the same context it is being used for the sources she often quotes. And based on the Anna Davison story, I would argue that finding Wendy's true definition of bias would be more difficult than getting her to shoot a feral pig. From what I can tell, bias for McCaw means somehow figuring out what things she she doesn't like and then writing about them.

Labels: , ,

13 Comments:

At 10:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you meant "feral," not "ferrel."

 
At 10:55 AM, Blogger Trekking Left said...

Oops, you're right, thanks. I fixed it.

 
At 1:14 PM, Blogger M.C. Confrontation said...

I am in no way backing Ms. McCaw or Mr. Armstrong or the News-Press here, but your quest for "proof" should begin with your own statements. I've read you throw around this "70% of Americans think Iraq was responsible for 9/11" several times. Where did this number come from? You never say. And how does the fact that "most of the population still believes there is a scientific debate about global warming" relate at all to the media being paranoid of being perceived as liberal? Isn't there a debate raging right now, as is evidenced by about 12 new articles a day in the papers, online, and on talk radio? Shoot there's three linked on Drudge right now.

 
At 2:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A side point to your main message, but you stated "Conservatives hate the media, because it's the media's job to expose corruption and question power."
By that are we to infer that you think all conservatives are in favor of corruption and don't question those in power?
I don't think that is an unbiased point of view...
Do you not suppose that the reason some conservatives think the main stream media is more liberal than conservative has to do with their choice of items to report versus those not reported or the choice of descriptive adjectives that infer certain points of view, etc., etc.?

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger Trekking Left said...

MCConfrontation - The 70% number was widely reported from many mainstream sources. But, I'll pick one ==> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/ ... Here's a quote:

"In a February CNN-Time poll, 76 percent of those surveyed felt Saddam provides assistance to al Qaeda. Another poll released in February asked, "Was Saddam Hussein personally involved in the September 11 attacks?" Although it is a claim the Bush administration has never made and for which there is no evidence, 72 percent said it was either very or somewhat likely.

So, I was wrong ... it's actually 72%. As the article states, the Bush administration never directly said there was a link. But they implied it so many times that eventually 7 in 10 Americans started to believe it. It was the media's responsibility to set the record straight and to inform the public. They failed.

Regarding the global warming issue, 99% of peer-reviewed studies have concluded that global warming is real and that humans are the main contributor. The media, in its rush to be fair and balanced, basically says,"Some people believe it's real, and some don't." This leaves the reader with the impression that there is a debate in the scientific community ... and there isn't. If the media wasn't afraid of being perceived a liberal, they would say that 99% of scientists believe it's real and 1% don't.
And BTW, you don't add much credibility to your argument by pointing to Drudge as your source.

 
At 5:03 PM, Blogger Trekking Left said...

Anonymous (2:28) - I'm a liberal blogger with a definite point of view, so I won't pretend to be unbiased. Having said that, I always try to be fair and truthful.

To answer your first question, no, I don't believe all conservatives think that way. Nor do I believe that all liberals are squeaky clean. However, I think you need look no further than Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Gonzales, DeLay (need I go on?) to see a pattern. On the whole, conservative politicians tend to exhibit this type of behavior, and if not for the media, they would get away with much of it. This is why the Democrats took control of Congress in the last election.

To answer your second question, I guess some conservatives might "think" the main stream media leans left due to the reasons you stated. But I think their perception doesn't coincide with reality. If the media leans left, then why (for example) were there more anti-Gore stories than anti-Bush stories in the 2000 campaign? Personally, I think many conservatives think the media leans left because journalists tend to be kind of lefty on social issues. But journalists are professionals, and it's insulting to assume they can't keep their personal views out of their reporting.

Thanks for your comments.

 
At 8:19 PM, Blogger TheAverageMan said...

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert

 
At 7:26 AM, Blogger M.C. Confrontation said...

You are insulted because I'm assuming that Dan Rather leans left and couldn't keep it out of his "news program?" Or that the NYT and Pinchy Sulzberger are unabashed liberals? I wouldn't be insulted if you said the Washington Post or the Manchester Union Leader leaned to the right. It's just the way it is man, don't take it so personally.

And what's wrong with Drudge? He's a news filter, not an editorialist or pontificator. How does perusing any news filter hurt my credibility? You folks can be so confusing.

 
At 11:10 AM, Blogger Trekking Left said...

The NYT does not lean left. Their editorials tend to, but their reporting is down the middle (or right of center if you agree with my assessment of the media). I don't read the Washington Post, but based on what I've heard about them, I would say they do not lean right either. Now, The Washington Times leans right.

Man, you guys just love to bring up Dan Rather when talking about media bias. Okay, let's talk about Dan:

1) I think you're proving my point with him. He dared to have a story that made Bush look bad, so "ta da," the media is left.

2) The producer of that story wrote a book arguing that the points brought up by right wing bloggers -- like typewriters of that time not being able to produce those memos -- is actually not true.

3) The other half of the Rather story is actually not disputed .. and that's that W's father used his connections to get his son to the front of the line for National Guard service.

Regarding Drudge, you can't honestly tell me you believe he's a simple news filter with no agenda? I mean, really? He clearly fights for right wing causes. The fact that you went to his site to prove there's still a global warming debate is telling in and of itself.

 
At 12:42 PM, Blogger M.C. Confrontation said...

A handful of Lexis Nexis searches I think would prove you wrong. It's the tool that Goldberg uses in his book to count up keyword references in the mainstream media. I don't have all the numbers handy but it was pretty convincing to me.

You're right on the Washington Times / Post. I knew it was one leaned one way and one the other way.

As for Dan Rather, that Canadian would have proven by now that he was right, if he could. Believe me if that guy was innocent he'd still be screaming bloody murder, and you would too, if you were innocent. We bring him up because he was at the tip top of the pyramid. Was.

As for Drudge, he is a simple news filter. When he writes it's only when it's his scoop, and that doesn't happen too often. Mostly his links are Reuters, AP, and ABCNews.com. I only go there because it's an easy format to surf. I didn't go to his site to prove any point other than that he links to warming stories all the time that argue from both sides, and they come in at a rapid rate, therefore the debate rages on.

 
At 2:46 PM, Blogger TheAverageMan said...

Drudge is far more than just a "filter". He gets talking points directly from the RNC and Karl Rove, which are then picked up by the radio and TV talking heads. That's the reason why they all hit the same topics and even use the same phrases every day. He's an essential piece of their propoganda machine.

And just because some people continue to insist on disagreeing about global warming (usually those who profit from the fossil fuel industry) doesn't mean it's an actual debate. I can say the sky is red and you say it's blue, that doesn't mean both points of view are equally valid.

 
At 4:45 PM, Blogger M.C. Confrontation said...

Did you really have to go back more than four years to get that tidbit? Seriously, do you keep these webpages on an external HD, or did you actually spend five minutes trolling back in time on that guys site?

Drudge is a filter, no more no less. He links to stories from respected media outlets like AP and Reuters and Breitbart. He does not comment or prognosticate, he merely links. You've got a web linker as the spearhead of the GOP in your world of unreality, it's classic. You people NEVER cease to amaze me!

 
At 9:01 AM, Blogger TheAverageMan said...

We looney lefties are just full of fun & surprises!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker