Cynical Optimist

Every day we hear stories, in the media, about media bias.

Every single day.

With John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate and the attacks on her from the liberal left, we hear even more about it. Todays blog is not to talk about whether the bias exists. It does and everyone knows it. Today I want to talk about HOW they do it. Because if people understand how it’s done, they will have more tools in their toolbox to counteract it. Our goal today, then, is to teach people enough about the tricks and techniques so that they can make up their own minds on the stories they see in the media. The tricks and techniques are so subtle and invisible (normally) that this will not be an easy task to accomplish.

In 1984 I was stuck on a ship, the USS Simon Lake, in Kings Bay, Georgia, waiting on a transfer back to Charleston, S.C. where I lived. It took many many months to get the paperwork through so I had a lot of free time on my hands. If any of you have been in the service waiting on paperwork you know what I mean.

Now, this ship I was on, temporarily, was a Submarine Tender and wasn’t designed to go anywhere on a regular basis. It pretty much just sat in the middle of the river while submarines would come and get repaired and then head back out to sea. So, there wasn’t much real Navy work to do, and I consequently had plenty of free time.

With all that free time I watched a lot of TV and read a lot of newspapers. Being a newshound I mostly watched a lot of news shows. This was long before the internet.

In 1984 Ronald Reagan was running against Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter’s former Vice President. Now, being a Navy guy, Ronald Reagon was my candidate and I was very curious to find out as much about the campaign as I could.

During the day I would read every newspaper I could get my hands on, and in the evening I would typically watch CBS, NBC and the McNeil-Lerher Newshour on PBS for hard news. Then I would watch Pat Buchanan and those folks from Crossfire on CNN. This is a good time to describe the difference between a journalist reporting news and the commentators providing analysis of the news. One reports the news, the other analyzes the news, giving it context and meaning. Pretty simple division of responsibility. Journalist are expected to be unbiased when reporting. Commentators are expected to have an opinion.

My viewing habit ran to about four hours a day watching news shows, in addition to the newspapers. That’s a lot of news coming into my brain, and that’s critical to an understanding of media bias.

I began to notice something after a couple of weeks. In the presentation of identical news stories on different channels I would come away with a different sense of what those stories meant. This was curious as these were “hard” news shows. I noticed the slant, weight, seriousness, meaning and terminology used would differ amongst all the broadcasts pretty significantly, sometimes making the whole story different.

So lets look at some of the tricks and techniques the news media uses to advance their political agenda. The Celestial Junk Blog describes them better than most so here is how they describe it.

1. Omitting Context

A favorite trick of the MSM is to withhold context from reports. Much like a child leaving out need-to-know information when explaining a wrong to a parent, the MSM often does not provide the whole picture. A typical example would be the following statement:

“Insurgents in Iraq today attacked a police station in Mosul. Twenty Five people were killed, among which were civilians and police.”

A statement of this sort leaves the impression that the terrorists completed a successful attack, when in fact, most of the dead were terrorists and more importantly, the police demonstrated their ability to repel the attack and inflict heavy causalities. Some would argue that the only valid number is the
kill total, because people are people whether terrorist or not. But, in reality the purpose of misleading statements like this is to mislead. The reader is left with the impression of a successful insurgency battling a struggling police force. Furthermore, the report may neglect to mention that civilians called
the police on cell phones to assist them in repelling the attack, and that some actually attacked the terrorists. Furthermore, the report may mention nothing of the fact that in the hours after the attack, civilian tips assisted police in capturing a number of terrorists who fled the botched attack.

The MSM regularly omits context in order to create headlines. Can any of us, whether politically left, right, or center, trust the MSM to fairly represent issues if context is omitted? After all, context is the single most important element in any news story because it is context that gives us the whole picture; not just the snippet that the MSM or any other disingenuous force wants us to believe.

2. Images

The easiest way to manipulate the truth is through the use of misleading visual images. Digital technology gives newsrooms the choice of splicing and dicing from thousands of still images taken over very short periods of time. Any video footage can be dissected into a multitude of still images. It is child’s play to make sure that the visuals presented reinforce the expressed theme, even though in reality, the images used may be garnered out of context or selectively edited from imagery that in fact does not support the theme.

In other words, any event can be manipulated to present a certain theme by simply being selective of the imagery used. Furthermore, neglecting to use images that provide context, or scope, is akin to forcing consumers to view events with one eye closed, or through a keyhole. They simply don’t get the whole picture.

3. Controlling Focus

As news stories develop, there are often a number of directions they can take. One would think that it would be the responsibility for the media to explore all relevant angles to a story, especially if that story unfolds over a protracted period of time. All to often though, the media will take it’s lead either
from non-media sources such as the communications department of a political party, or will flog only one aspect of a story. Because I am conservative, I’ll use one recent example of this; keeping in mind of course that different agencies may favor different political perspectives.

For instance, coverage of Iraq has focused virtually exclusively on the violence. Reconstruction, heroic deeds on the part of Iraqis and Coalition forces, democratic reforms, and economic gains and successes have been virtually ignored. Nobody would argue that the violence in Iraq should not be covered; it should, but by not covering other and often positive aspects, the MSM has willfully mislead those of us who are not there to judge for ourselves. As a sign of rejection and mistrust of MSM attempts to write the agenda and keep world focus where it wants it, millions of consumers now turn to the New Media for alternate, and some would argue, more honest, information.

4. Creating Myths

The MSM often manufactures issues based on scant facts. In other words, some of the key political stories featured in the MSM are by and large baseless.

The method used is simple; seize onto an obscure comment, an obscure statistic, an announcement from a dubious source, or even a poll result, then create an issue around it that is many times larger than the statistics or facts suggest. Right-wing politicians are subjected to this sort of media spin more than any other group. They constantly find themselves explaining their way out of non-issues. The most insidious aspect of this type of media mendacity, is the fact that even its victims often begin to believe what is being postulated in the press. In the War on Islamic Extremism, MSM providers regularly post as fact information coming from incredibly dubious sources in the Middle East and elsewhere, while ignoring or scrutinizing sources from Liberal Democracies.

A perfect example of myth making is the rush by the MSM to proclaim as fact every supposed report of “massacre” by either Israeli or American forces. The problem comes not in the reporting of “rumors” but in the disseminating of unsubstantiated, unproven, and dubious information as if it were fact.

5. Circular Reasoning

Typical MSM circular reasoning works as follows:

Media outlet “A” presents a thesis or apparent “fact”, citing dubious source “B” or another media source “C” as evidence. Other media sources then cite media source “A” as proof of the same, completing the circle. The layperson then may state that, “I believe myth X, because media A said so. In parlor lingo, we’d call this one big “circle jerk!”

An international example of this is the myth that the United States virtually single-handedly armed Saddam Hussein. The main source cited for proof is usually the New York Times, which itself cites incredibly suspect sources, if any at all. Even academic sources on this topic often cite The New York Times.

After a while the myth becomes fact, when in reality, there was never any hard evidence to go by. Note that in this case nobody ever sites the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, because this Left-wing organization has hard factual data that debunks the Myth.

6. Disingenuous Retractions

When the MSM makes errors, rare is the occasion that it apologizes in a truly contrite manner. For example, if a story leaves false impressions, uses fictitious data, or counterfeit sources, by design or by accident, seldom are we treated to retractions that are equal in magnitude to the damage done or false impressions left.

For example: If a story is found to be false or partially false, for whatever reason, retractions are usually made in such a secretive and hidden manner that the average consumer is never made aware of them. My favorite culprit is the BBC. Anti-American stories that have fallen far short of journalistic integrity are usually retracted in the most minimal way possible. The BBC on-line news service usually posts retractions for very brief periods of time and buried so deep in the on-line site that an electronic retraction-meter would be needed to find them.

What do retractions have to do with bias in the media? Simply this: Tepid and limpid retractions, on political issues, leave intact the impressions left by the false story or false portions of the story. In this way, a scurrilous story can be published, a retraction issued, yet the damage permanently done. If any news organization has a political bent, which it is obvious I believe most have, then disingenuous retractions are one of the most arrogantly flagrant forms of bias.

7. Misleading Headlines

Headlines are often the most important part of a news piece, whether print or audio visual. Attention getting headlines are necessary in a competitive environment and are often the only thing that may halt a disinterested consumer long enough to actually pickup, listen to, or watch the product.

The problem comes when headlines scream out misleading information; misleading as to the actual content of the story or misleading as to the actual facts.

The danger of misleading headlines it that they may leave consumers with a completely wrong impression, especially consumers who do not take the time to actually read or listen to entire pieces.

Headlines that are politically based, and misleading, can be particularly damaging. When three centimeter block text on the cover of a newspaper is used, it can be read by passersby, and even if these people do not purchase the product, impressions are made. If the headline is disingenuous, then false impressions are left. Surely, given their literary skills, journalists could conjure up headlines that are catchy, enticing, yet accurate in their portrayal of what the story they advertise contains. It is the mere fact that misleading headlines are written at all, by people who’s literary skills far exceed that of the general public, that I contend that misleading headlines are not a product of accident.

A typical headline may read, “Blair Under Attack from Within”, or, “Clinton Aide Cleared”. Upon reading further, we may find that one Blair MP has expressed concern, and that the Clinton aid has been cleared of the least serious charge, out of six. If a consumer did not read further, the false impression in each case has been left. Why not a headline that reads, “So and So Dissatisfied”, or, “So and So Cleared of Fraud Charge”.

Headlining is part of the competitive game played between news providers, but it need not be misleading. I suggest that misleading headlining is a symptom of MSM editors playing god with our impressions of what the world is about.

8. Terminology

The MSM ascribes to benign terms, connotations that forever leave those terms loaded with singular meaning. Furthermore, it plays disingenuous games with terminology in order to either create impressions, suppress impressions, or distract.

A typical example of this is the use of the word “conservative” or “rightwing”. We have “conservative organizations”, “conservative think-tanks”, “conservative professors”, “conservative institutes, and even “rightwing Catholics.” We have the “radical-right”, “neocons”, “Christian Right”, “right-wing newspapers”, “rightwing magazines”, “rightwing filmmakers”, and even “rightwing Liberals.” And, in most cases the terms are used with a subtle negative connotation attached. A typical method of doing so would be to introduce two guests during a television news program; one a member of the “Conservative think-tank, the Fraser Institute”, and the other a Professor of Economics, from Simon Fraser University. We would not be told though, that the professor is a proponent of massive government intervention in the economy, in short, an economic socialist. Viewers impressions would change significantly if he were introduced as , “the leftwing professor of economics…”

Another example might be the introduction of an organization as a “rightwing anti-abortion organization”, or a member of the “Christian Right”. At the same time, a proponent of unrestricted abortion, say from the “Committee on the Status of Women”, would NOT be introduced with political connotation added at all, such as, “the member of the radical feminist organization…”

I ask in all sincerity, how often does one hear an introduction on an MSM television program that goes, “We have with us today, So-and-So of the Leftwing think-tanks…!” or “Mr. So-and-So, a radical leftwing member of the…!” I am sure there are examples to be found, but they are far and few between.

On the other hand, terms such as “progressive” are doled out by the media as rewards to those who move to the left, or towards that which the MSM views as being praiseworthy. We are assaulted with phrases such as “Progressive member of the ….”, or how about “progressive elements within the church”, or even “progressive members within the party…” In virtually every instance, the term is used in a positive light to denote a move to the left, especially on social issues.

Another example is the use of words such as “terrorist”, “freedom fighter”, “insurgent”, “killers”, “militants”, “assassins”, etc. In Iraq, where Coalition efforts are seen as an affront to World Government, a favored lovechild of the MSM are the killers of women and children in market places, who are simply called “insurgents”, and “militants”. Even after the London bombings, the bombers were not called “terrorists”, “killers”, or even “murderers” by the likes of BBC.

I simply ask that readers watch, listen, and observe the media at work, as it gently massages and corrals us with words and phrases. It creates negative connotations in order to disparage, and positive connotation for that which it approves. In most cases, I suggest that the practice is done as second nature, not through design, but simply as an extension of the superciliousness and pomposity that members of the MSM possess. This group has gotten by without serious challenge for decades; and because it works primarily in words, it’s intents, whether by design or by habit, can be seen in its manipulation of terms and phrases.

9. Passing the Buck

There are two activities engaged in by the MSM which should always raise eyebrows and which should always warn readers that all is not as it seems. The first is deliberate, the second, is a matter of economic necessity.

1. How often have you heard or seen media use “unnamed sources”, or “officials within the department of ….”, or “ military sources…”, or “some within the community”, or “a sampling of street interviews”, or “a member of the …”

Anytime unspecific sources such as the the above are used to bolster a story, I recommend flat out disregarding of the story. Turn off the TV, turn the page, toss the news paper. The above are typical ways that media uses substitution for hard facts, in order to fill out a story or to manipulate the truth.

Only in extremely rare cases, when the well-being of the “source” is at stake, should “unnamed” sources be used. Journalists like to justify the “unnamed source” technique by falling back on the long worn out credo of “protecting our sources”. Basically, it’s a canard. As of late, “unnamed sources” have become the chief sources of myth making and propagating rumors. The use of “unnamed sources” is basically the reduction of big-time media into small town gossip rag.

2. Out of economic necessity, media sources rely on international news providers, such as Associated Press and Reuters, when reporting on global issues. The main source of international news is, therefore, Associated Press and Reuters. AP and Reuters news, video, and photos, are purchased and run at face value worldwide. Canadian news media providers have virtually no way of checking the accuracy of these stories. Suffice it to say, that both AP and Reuters have given news watchers, whether bloggers or watch-dog organizations, within the United States, a hay-day in pointing out errant and even contrived reports or footage via these two souces.

Let’s consider the immense trust we have to put in the MSM if we are to believe a story from Iraq, or any other problematic corner of this globe. A little known source takes photos and pictures, ads interpretation, then sells the work to AP. AP adds it’s own interpretation, then sells the same to a MSM provider. The local provider adds interpretation, then sells the same to us. In short, do you really know, what you think you know, based on what you’ve just read or watched concerning events half a world away.

At this point you might say, OK, the media is biased. So what?

This is why it’s important. In 2006 I was deployed to the Middle East when the Haditha incident exploded in the media. You’ll recall Haditha is where Marines were accused of killing 24 people without justification. The only source of news I had, while deployed, was the Stars and Stripes newspaper and various web sites such as the New York Times.

At one point during this deployment I met a Marine Lt. Colonel who was a lawyer investigating Haditha. I said to him we Americans would like to believe we are above such things as Haditha, but a reading of history shows that we are not. He gave me a funny look, which I didn’t understand at the time, and then moved on.

Thus far, three years later, no Marine combat troops have been convicted of any wrongdoing in the Haditha incident. Despite my experience seeing the media bias during the 1984 election, and despite my military background, I still was taken in by the reporting on Haditha, assuming incorrectly, that the Marines had committed war crimes.

The danger of media bias is it inhibits the ability of Americans to make major decisions based on truth and facts. The only way an average person can filter out the spin is to spend most of their waking hours reading and watching every news item they can find.

That’s just not practical.

The media’s coverage of Sarah Palin is a case study in bias.

Media Bias - Headline Games

Digg It. It’s Easy.

Tags: Media Bias, Politics, Random Thoughts //