This is the first in an occasional series about the issue of “media bias.”
Nothing wounds a good newsman or newswoman as deeply as an allegation of bias. Even if the bias is conceded to be unintentional, it suggests a failure of the professional discipline that we journalists pride ourselves on and that is the basis of our credibility. If it is said to be intentional, it amounts to an allegation of deliberate distortion and bad faith.
I don’t know whether ordinary readers of the newspaper are aware of this sensitivity, but they certainly seem to delight in pushing the bias button. By far the single largest category of substantive complaints that I receive as public editor is about what the complainants consider bias.
And with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in a relatively quiet phase, most of the recent complaints have been about our treatment–or mistreatment–of President Bush.
An archetypal complaint came via e-mail in October, in response to an analysis by senior correspondent Michael Tackett of the Justice Department’s decision to investigate the leaking of the name of a CIA operative, possibly by someone in the White House.
“Sirs,
“You’ve added your paper to the list of those who’ve lost complete credibility with the public by slandering the President, while pretending to cloak a journalists [sic] political views as `news.'”
From a man who described himself as a longtime news reader, the letter went on to take issue with Tackett’s lead sentence (“If President Bush had one ready applause line, one central conceit, in his 2000 campaign, it was his vow to `restore honor and integrity to the White House.'”) and to predict ultimate doom for the Tribune:
“The Internet provides many more places for insightful commentary and unbiased news than `old media’ … From now on when I see a lede or byline with `Chicago Tribune,’ it goes into the mental `bucket’ that includes the NYTimes, BBC, Al Jazeera and National Enquirer, and I simply move on.”
This letter was “typical” in several respects. It was from a Bush supporter, and supporters outnumber critics by at least two-to-one among those who complain of a Tribune bias. It suggested that by daring to look critically at the statements of the president and the actions of his administration the Tribune had forfeited its credibility. And it alluded to an abundance of alternate sources of news on the Internet, but without naming them.
One thing that never appears in these complaints is any recognition or acknowledgement that the president and his people are not mere spectators as the media go about their work. More even than the legendary “spin control” operation in the Clinton White House, they are actively involved in trying to shape and sell their message to the media and the American public–and to discourage alternate readings of events, motives, ideas.
Timothy McNulty, the Tribune’s associate managing editor for foreign news, alluded to this message-management in discussing allegations of bias in coverage of the occupation of Iraq. That charge goes like this: “You write about every bombing and shooting, but you never write about the schools our soldiers have rebuilt, the hospitals they’re reconstructing, and the opinion polls that show most Iraqis are glad the U.S. got rid of the Hussein regime.”
“Initially,” McNulty said, “part of the perception of bias is because the administration is determined to get its message out.” When the media report skeptically and critically about that message–and what’s the point of doing journalism if not to be skeptical and critical?–they come off as “negative.”
There’s a lot more to it, of course, including the tendency among critics to lump all media together as one and some actual failings on the part of media. But everything starts from that fundamental duty of the journalist, which is also the office of the citizen: to examine critically the actions of the government.
Defining `trash’
In his column “On Figure Skating” in Tuesday’s Sports section, Philip Hersh wrote the following sentence: “Harding grew up in an environment that could politely be called lower class but actually reeked of white trash.”
That term, “white trash,” struck Don Krzyzak, who described himself as a former professor of social work, as highly objectionable. “This term,” he said in a phone message, “has no place in the Tribune or any other newspaper in the United States.”
I agree.
In response to an e-mail I sent to Hersh and his editors asking about the decision to use the term, Hersh wrote: “I thought long and hard before using it. The term fit Tonya Harding perfectly.”
For the record: The Tribune Stylebook prescribes the use of racially derogatory terms “only in direct quotes that are absolutely essential to a story.” It adds, “Derogatory and unnecessary references to national origin and race do not belong in the Tribune.”
