How Truthful Are Newspapers?

[Jackmannii]

As a former reporter and current news consumer, it should be clarified that there is no such thing as objective reporting. The only truly objective people are dead. Controversial issues are always going to be filtered through a reporter or editor’s set of personal predjudices and opinions.
The standard to strive for is fairness. Save the editorials for the editorial page. Unfortunately, opinions increasingly creep into news accounts.

Sometimes interviewees will say something in public and then flatly deny it later when they realize the impact of their remarks. For example, I had one bozo running for the school board declare himself in favor of corporal punishment and then claim he was misquoted when his remarks wound up in my story.
It’s hard to quarrel with audio or videotape, which is why it can be a good idea to tape yourself while being interviewed and let the reporter know it’s happening.

[Acsenray]

In the case of someone who is being interviewed only because he or she has suffered a misfortune – I have absolutely no expectation that he or she will speak to me, but I think that they should be just as polite in declining my request to speak as I am in making such a request. I totally understand not wanting to speak to a reporter in this kind of situation – in fact, I think such “how do you feel” stories are just about the most pointless and un-newsworthy stories that appear in the press – but I do resent rudeness or anger when refusing such a request.

In the other cases – politicians, scientists, corporate executives, etc. – they are all doing things that may have a major impact on the public. I think they are morally obliged to explain what they’re doing, and, to be fair, I have rarely encountered a situation in which politicians and scientists will refuse to talk about something. In this case the press is representing the public.

[istara]

Thanks, ascenray. In the case of the bereaved I mentioned above, please note that I added: “ONLY if you are comfortable speaking to me.”

In the case of others, I’m talking about people who are quite happy to issue press releases left right and centre about their crappy “news”, then clam up like fukkas when a journo actually calls them for a bit more depth, or a quote somewhat better than:

“This exciting, challenging and market-leading product represents the next major step in our company’s corporate vision of increased market share as we continue our strong postition of dominance in this sector.”

Because puff-shit like that is never going to make it into my programme or my article. And I have fucking nightmares with trainee reporters trying to get them not to put it into their stories.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by acsenray *
In the other cases – politicians, scientists, corporate executives, etc. – they are all doing things that may have a major impact on the public. I think they are morally obliged to explain what they’re doing, and, to be fair, I have rarely encountered a situation in which politicians and scientists will refuse to talk about something. In this case the press is representing the public.

You think the public is privileged to impose itself on people who don’t want to be imposed upon? Jeez, and journalists wonder why people so often don’t like them.

istara, the mere fact that somebody issues a press release does not entitle you to get snotty if they’re not willing to give you anything more, or if they’re simply not that as good as you’d like at expressing themselves in a subsequent interview. In fact, I would say that many press releases are issued precisely because the person does not want to screw around with press interviews and fumble around for the proper thing to say.

And I do have some small experience with being on the other side of that camera and those notepads. One of my cases has received a certain amount of press attention, and I’ve been the lucky lawyer who had to walk past the press covering the story a couple times. Guess what, folks? I am NOT saying one goddamned word about it. I’m not telling you what I think the judge is going to do, I’m not telling you what our reaction is to the opposing counsel’s papers, I’m not telling you what the client’s position is. It’s just not going to happen. If you don’t like what’s in the press release, then don’t use it. I guarantee you won’t be hearing from me if you ignore it.

Finally, and most importantly, when you and your cameraman pop into the clerk’s office while I’m filing papers with the court, and I tell you that we’re not going to have any comment, DO NOT be a pushy jerk by turning the camera on and proceeding to ask questions for which you’ve already been told you’re not going to get any answer. I understand you have a job to do. You need to understand that I have a job to do as well, and mine is not necessarily going to accomodate yours.

[astorian]

Despite my far-right leanings, I very rarely doubt the basic truth of news stories I read in newspapers, even very liberal newspapers.

Oh, I’m human, so sure, I got a bit of a kick out of seeing the Washington Post squirm after that Janet Cooke scandal. And on the rare occasions the New York TImes or Boston Globe gets caught in a blatant falsehood, I snicker a little.

But I’ve never doubted that most reporters at all major newspapers (again, including the liberal ones) want to get their stories right. Their political biases may very well lead them to pursue a particular type of story, but it doesn’t follow that they make stories up.

Look, I fully EXPECT a liberal reporter to look for stories that fit with his personal beliefs. Will he look extra-hard for scandals involving conservative icons? Of course. Will he look for cases of coporate fraud? Of course. Will he jump at the chance to write a story about big business despoiling the environment or screwing the little guy? Absolutely.

But even when a reporter is motivated by liberal politics, he STILL wants to get the story right. Janet Cookes are few and far between. So, while I might resent liberal reporters, or wonder about their motives in pursuing a particular story, I almost never doubt the basic facts they lay out in news stories.

[ElJeffe]

ElJeffe:
quote:

“Radical conservative Dick Armey responded to Cynthia McKinney’s position with skepticism.”

I agree, this doesn’t sound right, but is it a true quote?

No, it’s an example I pulled out of my bum for demonstrative purposes, but it’s not as much of an exaggeration as you might think.

Part of the problem is in defining the labels. Most conservatives happily label themselves as such, and the term can be defined as someone who takes the familiar conservative positions across the board (with the glaring exception that not all pro-gun/anti-tax conservatives are religious). But non-conservatives are all over the map, and “liberal” is a label that more and more people are shying away from because it’s used perjoratively and is subject to some pretty outragous stereotyping.

True, “conservative” and “liberal” are subjective, to some extent. Which is why I said, in general, referring to them as “deomocrat” and “republican” is preferrable - it’s an objective term. And honestly, I don’t think that when “conservative” is used in the media, it’s always (or even usually) used as an insult. I think it’s used in a genuine attempt to be informative. The only reason that “liberal” isn’t used as often is because journalists taken as a whole legitimately seem to have a skewed view of how the political spectrum unfolds. Robert Redford and Barbra Streisand aren’t liberal, they’re just regular people - Arnold Schwarzenegger, though… now that’s a conservative.

quote:

If you do need to use “liberal” and “conservative”, remember that those terms should be used relative to mainstream America, not to yourself

First, you seem to be doing just that, second a person whose position is unchanged shouldn’t be re-labeled just because the majority has shifted. The terms should be defined according to an objective standard.

First, I can do that if I want, because I’m not writing a news column. Second, a position absolutely should be changed if the majority shifts. “Liberal” and “conservative” are like “big” and “small”. They have meaning only in relative context. For example, if you plopped Dick Armey in Saudi Arabia, he’d be seen as extremely liberal - I mean, c’mon, women having equal rights? That’s about as liberal as you can get. And what, religious tolerance? Must be a hippie.

quote:

As such, you have to be a communist before they call you a liberal, but they’ll refer to Hillary Clinton as a conservative or moderate.

Liberalism has nothing to do with communism, and is this a true quote from a mainstream journalist about Hillary Clinton being “conservative”?

I would disagree with your first point. Being a liberal doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a communist, but communism is an extreme form of liberalism, just as fascism is an extreme form of conservatism. And there was an AP article not too long ago saying how much of a moderate Hillary is:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/democrats.hillary.ap/index.html

quote:

Newspapers that have no problem referring to a pro-lifer as a radical extremist, yet call the 9/11 terrorists “freedom fighters”, are annoying.

Are these true quotes by mainstream newspapers?

Pro-lifers are sometimes referred to as radicals and extremists, and I don’t mean just the ones who bomb abortion clinics. Sorry, no cite at this time. As to the freedom fighter thing, an executive at Reuters said the official company policy was not to use the word “terrorist” when referring to the 9/11 attackers, because “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.
Jeff

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
And there was an AP article not too long ago saying how much of a moderate Hillary is:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/democrats.hillary.ap/index.html

In fact, that article is a piece of political analysis, not a straight news story. Furthermore, it factually demonstrates that her voting record has been much more centrist (i.e., “moderate”) than many people expected. The article is certainly not a simple assertion that Hillary is a moderate, and your citation to it as an example of knee-jerk press bias is unpersuasive.

Other than that, you have offered absolutely nothing in the way of demonstrating your asserted examples of anti-conservative press bias.

[sqweels]

For example, if you plopped Dick Armey in Saudi Arabia, he’d be seen as extremely liberal - I mean, c’mon, women having equal rights? That’s about as liberal as you can get. And what, religious tolerance? Must be a hippie.

You have a point there, so I’ll retreat, but then you said:

communism is an extreme form of liberalism

Wrong! In Russia, Boris Yeltsin and the anti-communists reformers were the liberals, yet they were further to the right. They were liberal because they challenged the assumptions of communism, advocated change, supported more human rights, etc. Nothing “permissive” about communism.

I’ve said this before: “Liberal” means a willingness to challenge established beliefs, also “unrestricted”. “Left-wing” is advocacy of policies to remedy percieved past inequities. Liberalism and leftism march hand-in-hand for a ways, but when leftism becomes dogmatic and disregards human rights, it violates key principles of liberalism and they part company.

OTOH, whether or not “conservative” and “right-wing” are synonymous is a question I’ve thus far been unable to answer.

[ElJeffe]

quote:

Originally posted by ElJeffe
And there was an AP article not too long ago saying how much of a moderate Hillary is:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS...y.ap/index.html

In fact, that article is a piece of political analysis, not a straight news story. Furthermore, it factually demonstrates that her voting record has been much more centrist (i.e., “moderate”) than many people expected. The article is certainly not a simple assertion that Hillary is a moderate, and your citation to it as an example of knee-jerk press bias is unpersuasive.

When it first appeared on CNN, it was billed as a “news” story, not a “political commentary” story. Second, the title of the story: “Hillary Clinton emerges as a moderate” sounds like a simple assertion to me. The fact that the bulk of the story goes on to better explain the situation simply highlights the fact that the title of the story is either biased or sloppy. And incidentally, it “factually demonstrates” that her record has been extermely liberal. It mentions her USPIRG rating as 85, and her ADA rating as 95. For comparison, Ted Kennedy, uber-liberal, has a USPIRG rating of 75.

You’re right, it’s possible that it’s not bias. It could just be an example of extremely horrible reporting, including such errors as:

• misleading headlines
• self-refuting statements
• statistics listed out of context (ie, mentioning USPIRG and ADA figures without showing what they mean)

Either way, it’s a great example of what not to do.

Other than that, you have offered absolutely nothing in the way of demonstrating your asserted examples of anti-conservative press bias.

I wasn’t trying to. I was simply giving Gex pointers on what not to do. Trying to establish that liberal bias exists wasn’t my purpose, and I think it strays beyond the realm of the OP.

Jeff

[ElJeffe]

quote:

communism is an extreme form of liberalism

Wrong! In Russia, Boris Yeltsin and the anti-communists reformers were the liberals, yet they were further to the right. They were liberal because they challenged the assumptions of communism, advocated change, supported more human rights, etc. Nothing “permissive” about communism.

I’ve said this before: “Liberal” means a willingness to challenge established beliefs, also “unrestricted”. “Left-wing” is advocacy of policies to remedy percieved past inequities. Liberalism and leftism march hand-in-hand for a ways, but when leftism becomes dogmatic and disregards human rights, it violates key principles of liberalism and they part company.

OTOH, whether or not “conservative” and “right-wing” are synonymous is a question I’ve thus far been unable to answer.

Sorry, I’ve been using more contemporary definitions of the words “liberal” and “conservative”. You’re right, in the strictist sense, “liberal” means “wanting change”, “conservative” means “wanting to stay the same”. However, nowadays, it’s the left-wingers who pretty much have what they want in the US, and the right-wingers who want change. Right-wingers today are pretty much classical liberals. However, when you here “liberal” in the media, it typically means “left-wing”, and “conservative” means “right-wing”. I’ve just adopted my definitions to match, because it’s simpler. With the left-wing/right-wing definitions in place, it can then be said correctly that communism is an extreme form of liberalism (ie, communism = extreme left-wing). Sorry again for any misunderstanding.

Jeff

[stpauler]

Wow, a whole GD about news and newspaper without a mention of Chomsky, there, I said the name. Someone had to.

My opinion is the majority of the standard news sources try and present factual information as best as they possibly can to become more trusted and more subscribed to. There are the fringe newssources (naming names, foxnews.com, newsmax.com) that are definitely coming from a slant. So in order to get the best information, you have to take the news in in a Chomskyian way. read multiple source and try to discern what the news is minus the opinions that are mixed into the stories.

[minty_green]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
When it first appeared on CNN, it was billed as a “news” story, not a “political commentary” story.

No, the article itself indicates it is from Inside Politics, which regularly features political analysis and interviews with talking head-types.

And incidentally, it “factually demonstrates” that her record has been extermely liberal.

Quite the contrary. Observe:

*Clinton supported bankruptcy changes even though critics complained they did not do enough to protect mothers owed child support or those facing catastrophic medical bills.

She is co-sponsor of a welfare bill that increases child care aid but also work requirements. That so angered some poverty advocates they protested outside her Washington home.

She bucked her liberal Hollywood supporters and teamed with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, on a bill that would penalize the entertainment industry for marketing sex and violence to children. *

Classic liberal positions, huh?

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by stpauler *
**So in order to get the best information, you have to take the news in in a Chomskyian way. read multiple source and try to discern what the news is minus the opinions that are mixed into the stories. **

Rather than wade through competing biases and opinion masquerading as news, I’d prefer to work towards professionalism in reporting.

In many cases one can readily filter out bias, sometimes it’s more subtle, and occasionally it’s just irritating. Take for instance a story appearing in the past week in the N.Y. Times.

It featured an interview with a Catholic bishop in N.Y. (supposedly the first time he’d agreed to an interview on the church’s sex scandal). The reporter made a point of saying that the meeting had taken place in the archdiocese’s “high-rise Manhattan offices”, “with a view of the Chrysler Building”. To reinforce that seeming non-sequitur, there was also a photo of the bishop by his office window, complete with view.
It’s not difficult to fathom the thought processes of the reporter/editor. "Wow, what a great metaphor for the wealthy Church’s isolation from the masses! Just in case readers are too dumb to get the allusion based on the news copy (WHAP!), we’ll throw in a photo too! (HEY YOU! WE’RE MAKING A POINT HERE!).

I happen to agree there’s evidence that Church leaders have lost touch with the rank-and-file on this issue and have done an abysmal job handling abusive priests. But there’s no reason for this shabby little editorializing trick in the guise of a news story.

[ElJeffe]

Quite the contrary. Observe:
quote:

Clinton supported bankruptcy changes even though critics complained they did not do enough to protect mothers owed child support or those facing catastrophic medical bills.

She is co-sponsor of a welfare bill that increases child care aid but also work requirements. That so angered some poverty advocates they protested outside her Washington home.

She bucked her liberal Hollywood supporters and teamed with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, on a bill that would penalize the entertainment industry for marketing sex and violence to children.

Classic liberal positions, huh?

Yes, if those were the only things she’d ever voted on, she would be quite right-wing. However, her record consists of far more than 3 votes. Go to the US PIRG homesite, and do a little research. There are only 9 senators in the US who scored higher than her in 2002. That means that, according to this pretty objective litmus test, she’s the 10th most liberal senator in the US. Please explain to me, in 100 words or less, how that makes her a moderate. For the record, these are the senators who scored higher than her in 2002:

Boxer, Lieberman, Biden, Harkin, Sarbanes, Kerry, Dayton, Wellstone, Reed

If she’s a moderate, then what does that make Daschle, Leahy, and Kennedy? Are they conservatives?
Jeff

[sqweels]

ElJeffe:

Right-wingers today are pretty much classical liberals. However, when you here “liberal” in the media, it typically means “left-wing”, and “conservative” means “right-wing”

Then why don’t we say “liberal” only when we mean liberal and say “left-wing” when we mean left-wing? It’s only in the past few years that the term has been hijacked to mean “more government, less freedom”, and I contend that this is a classic case of Big Lie propaganda.

Instead of letting certain people apply it as a label to their political foes, shouldn’t people who actually call themselves liberals tell us what it means?

This disput over its meaning goes a long way toward explaining why the media is reluctant to label anyone “liberal”.

[Acsenray]

(About rewriting an athlete’s “yeah” into a quoted sentence—) There’s probably a hundred different ways you could write this, but as a journo and as a reader I see nothing wrong or misrepresentative with your version.

Frankly, I see everything wrong with it. As far as I am concerned, a basic rule of journalism — no matter whether it’s serious journalism, or political commentary, or sports writing, or puff pieces — You only put quotation marks around words that the guy actually said. If it makes for a boring quote, if it makes him look stupid — tough, that’s what he said.

If I were the editor and I found out that sports writers were faking quotes like this, they would be immediately out on their ears, even faster if they tried the “but it’s sports reporting” line. That’s plain and simple bullshit.

You think the public is privileged to impose itself on people who don’t want to be imposed upon?

There are people who by their own jobs or actions are imposing themselves on the public. This includes all elected officials, most appointed officials, anyone in a position to influence public policy, many scientists and engineers, and many businessman (certainly any businessman whose business involves selling goods to the public or whose operations have an affect on the economy or environment). If you’re doing something that has a major impact on the public, then I don’t care if you want to be imposed upon or not. If you want to be left alone, then go do a job that doesn’t affect the public.

In fact, I would say that many press releases are issued precisely because the person does not want to screw around with press interviews and fumble around for the proper thing to say.

This is flat wrong. Nearly 100 percent of press releases are issued because the person issueing them has an interest in what is going to be said in the press about that topic, usually from a political or business perspective. People who issue press releases are largely hoping that their point of view gets picked up and quoted. The press has no obligation to cover things from the point of view of a person issuing a press release.

I, for one, will not quote directly from a press release, because, by definition, they are faked quotes. I want my information directly from the source in a manner in which I can follow up for clarification and make sure that what I am writing is as objective and thorough as I can make it.

and I’ve been the lucky lawyer who had to walk past the press covering the story a couple times.

I, for one, do not expect a lawyer to discuss his client’s case with the public. But, should he or she choose to issue some kind of release or make a public statement in person, then to me that means that the lawyer is soliciting media attention in hopes that the client’s point of view will be reflected in the coverage. Don’t want to talk to the press? That’s fine. Your job is to represent your client. I might be inconvenienced by your refusal to talk, but should you just politely decline to make any comment, I can only respect that.

[Acsenray]

Journalist to David Beckham: “David, were you happy with your performance today?”
Beckham: “Yeah.”
Article in newspaper: “Beckham told us, ‘I’m quite happy with my performance today’.”

This was the example I was referring to above. I just want to point out — as someone already had with another example — that this exchange is an example of a reporter who has not learned the skill of asking questions or interviewing. If you don’t want a yes-or-no answer, don’t ask a yes-or-no question. This reporter fucked up and it does not excuse his fabricating a quote by Beckham. This is just plain bad journalism.

[Acsenray]

Journalist to David Beckham: “David, were you happy with your performance today?”
Beckham: “Yeah.”
Article in newspaper: “Beckham told us, ‘I’m quite happy with my performance today’.”

This was the example I was referring to above. I just want to point out — as someone already had with another example — that this exchange is an example of a reporter who has not learned the skill of asking questions or interviewing. If you don’t want a yes-or-no answer, don’t ask a yes-or-no question. This reporter fucked up and it does not excuse his fabricating a quote by Beckham. This is just plain bad journalism.

If, after asking a good question, Beckham still comes out looking like an inarticulate fool, then it’s not the reporter’s business to try to change that impression.

[istara]

acsenray - I suggest you go and talk to some sports journos!

[Acsenray]

istara - Talk to them about what? If this is what they’re doing, then I have nothing to more to say than that they are violating journalistic ethics and that I wouldn’t stand for it on any publication that was under my direction.

Also, I have never met an American sports journalist who admits to doing things like this.