From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Managing The News
Organization: Glassboro State College (Or Not, I Can't Be Sure)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:10:31 GMT


[ This is a long post, but I think it flows well.  Also, it's got some
  detailed examples and a pretty good quote at the bottom. 8-) ]

Kerry Stephenson continues our discussion of problems with news sources.  I
agree with much of what she says: some news sources try to argue for ideas
instead of merely reporting facts; also, many other things depend on how well
the news is reported.

As she says:

> [N]ewspaper articles are also *sources* for more influential pieces of
> prose, such as journal articles, books, editorials, and research.  [...]
> Researchers analyze poll results from newspapers, they analyze editorials,
> they predict trends in policy and *make important policy recommendations*
> based, in part, on information that comes from newspapers and news
> magazines[.]

All of which is exactly correct.  Much of the information we take for granted
rests on the reliability of newspaper/magazine/television reports, and those
sources are not perfectly reliable.  That is why I so frequently give
references to books on logic and rhetoric, why I think all high school
graduates should have classes in logic, rhetoric, and statistics.  This basic
accuracy problem, when added to the frightening skill that advertisers have to
control ideas, makes me distrustful of almost every authority.


We're wandering slightly from the Christia charter, but I think we can get
back to it.  Miss Stephenson wrote:

> Maybe I'm the only one, but I think this is *bad*, unjust, and *wrong*.

I agree that this state of affairs is Not Good.  I suspect that the number of
people who get unfairly criticised is the same as the number of people who get
unfairly praised, so taken as a whole The System is probably fair.  But the
word `wrong' is ambiguous.  If you mean "factually erroneous", then I agree.
If you mean "morally bankrupt", then I think you are just expecting too much.

I agree that there are news organisations which are biased; I have seen some
biased both ways, but without doing some research I will not comment on which
candidate/party has more followers in the press.  I have no solid statistics
to justify any such claim.  With that disclaimer aside, I'll proceed to my
main thesis.


Errors can appear with no intentional malice, and even with no active bias.
Let's take one real-life example: this week's speeches to the American Legion.

George Bush and Bill Clinton both spoke; in absolute terms, Mr Bush did a
better job.  He discussed his military experience both as a front-line soldier
and Commander-In-Chief -- both in wars the US won.  He has experience in these
matters, and he shared it with the audience.  He defended himself from the
notion that the US erred in the Persian Gulf by stopping too soon, saying that
we aren't in the slaughter business.  This was, I think, the best part of his
speech, and it was something he hasn't spoken of in detail before.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had to talk about the past speaking as one
who did not fight.  He addressed the Vietnam issue (how honestly or completely
I do not know), he talked about other Presidents without military experience,
and he spoke of what he would do to help veterans.  His best bit came when he
said he was relieved that he wasn't called to serve in Vietnam, because he
thought -- and still thinks -- that our policy there was wrong.  He said he
knows people disagree with him -- but he didn't apologise for disagreeing with
them, he wasn't going to change his mind, and he didn't expect them to change
their minds.


Mr Bush, as a war hero and successful commander, was expected to do well
speaking to the American Legion -- and he did.  Mr Clinton was expected to
have an uphill battle, which he did well in.  So, if you are a commentator,
how do you evaluate it?  Mr Bush did better, but he was before a friendly
audience -- Mr Clinton did better than I would have expected, against an
audience that might rightly be hostile.  So who did a better job?

The MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour ran extended excerpts from the speeches; they
cannot run both completely, because they only have an hour and they have to
address other news too.  But what excerpts?  Mr Bush's highlight was the
account of stopping Desert Storm -- in which he flubbed some words and goofed
up his momentum.  Mr Clinton's highlight was flawlessly delivered.  If you
just run the highlights, then you have the President on screen tripping over
his tongue, and you have Gov Clinton sounding composed and organised.  But
if you run a different section of Mr Bush's speech, then your audience will
get his second-best material.  Either way, this is going to make George Bush
look less Presidential.  The people who see it may come away thinking better
of Bill Clinton (even if they don't know why).

Do you run nothing?  Do you run both candidate's second-best material?  What?
How much time do you spend before you go on to other, arguably more important,
stories (like, say, war in Bosnia and famine in Somalia)?

I don't think there is a perfectly good solution, and nothing you do can
totally eliminate the resulting bias in your newscast -- even if you have no
such bias in your agenda.


Or suppose they both give speeches today, and Bill Clinton largely repeats
earlier material, while George Bush says all new stuff.  A sensible reporter
will write more about Mr Bush's text than Mr Clinton's, which was presumably
in an earlier paper.  But now the report seems to take Mr Bush more seriously,
giving him more space and addressing more of his comments.  Do you re-run
commentary about Mr Clinton to offset this?  At what point do you stop
agonising over fairness and move on to something else?


Another way `unfair' reporting can arise even from unbiased reporters is the
matter of priorities.  Suppose candidate X gives a speech addressing four
issues, and omitting the one most important to the reporter's home-town
people.  He will, accurately, say "Mr X spoke for an hour, but said nothing of
substance about <issue>."  Another reporter, whose home-town readers are
primarily interested in something the candidate DID talk about, may say "Mr X
spoke at some length about <issue>, addressing assorted important details."
Both guys saw the same speech.  Neither is biased against the candidate in
question.  Both have written the exact truth as they saw it.  But what they
saw, is filtered through what they consider important.  The results seem to be
slanted stories, because of what they think their readers are concerned with.
Even if they refrain from commentary, and only give the plain facts, it
doesn't get much better.  The first reporter might write a sentence or two
about the issues which were addressed, and end with "Nothing was said about
<issue>" -- giving the candidate only a few paragraphs.  The second reporter
gives a couple paragraphs to each issue addressed, and does not mention the
things omitted.  Now have they been fair?

If, of course, a reporter or editor or commentator had a brother put out of
work, or somebody killed in a war, or wants private school vouchers, or is
concerned about the deficit, or any of a number of other things, he may have
a bias that he doesn't always overcome.


All of this can happen without the slightest intent to be dishonest; it can
happen even with active attempts to be fair.  That's just the way it goes.
No source of information -- no news agency, clergyman, politician, government
official, nobody -- is ever going to give you completely correct data free
from bias.  You can't do anything to fix them.  The only thing you can do is
watch carefully for errors, by learning how to spot and correct for them.

And this applies to much more than just politics; any reporter, news writer,
editor, TV news director, or other speaker will collect data, select the parts
that he considers "newsworthy" (presumably a combination of unusual and
important, among other things), and distribute those parts.  They have to do
this, or we would be unable to make sense of the news.  The electronic
machines that enable us to reproduce pictures and sound flawlessly provide us
with too much information for anyone to digest all of it.  What we get as
readers/viewers depends on what goes into their definition of "important", how
well they adhere to their own goals, and how well they communicate what they
have to say.  We may disagree with their priorities, they may miss something
they'd surely pass along otherwise, or we may misunderstand what gets said.

Often there are unfair biases which go into the mix, but they don't have to
be there for things to get fouled up.


The reason I think this bears on Christianity is that some of us live in
countries where we can affect public policies, or where we have access to
public forums for dispensing information.  It may not be sinful to act on
faulty ideas, but it's certainly suspect.  I think Christians who are going to
vote have an obligation to be informed about the issues on which they are
voting, and that obligation includes careful analysis of the information they
get.  I think Christians who are going to speak in public forums -- especially
if they are going to claim to speak for Christianity at large -- have a
similar obligation to to well informed, which similarly includes careful
thought about the information they have.  Sadly, many Christians (some
televangelists come to mind) take action or speak in public, and do so without
(apparently) thinking and researching carefully first.

 --

In addition to the other things I've recommended before, people who are
interested in this topic might like an essay by Bertrand Russell titled
"An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish: A Hilarious Catalogue of Organized and
Individual Stupidity".  He talks about some ridiculous things people have
believed, why (in his opinion) they believed them, and how to tell if you have
joined their number.  I don't agree with everything he says, but he's on
target with a lot of it.

Anyone who doesn't like hearing his religion criticised should note that
several religious ideas (Christian and otherwise) take some hard hits.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Man is a rational animal -- so at least I have been told.  Throughout my long
 life, I have looked diligently for evidence in favour of the statement, but
 so far I have not had the good fortune to come across it, though I have
 searched in many countries spread over three continents.  On the contrary, I
 have seen the world plunging continually further into madness."
                                         -- Bertrand Russell (from the essay)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia