About the role of Media

The role of media in our lives is a mixed blessing. Both print and electronic media are held in low regard, are thought to be biased to the point of dishonesty, yet they remain our major source of information about everything from war to entertainment. The Internet is no more reliable. It merely increases the number of voices.

It is informative and fun, though, to engage in conversation and debate about the media. Beginning with my essay at the top of the left column below, I will publish fact and opinion, including the words of print and electronic pundits, which reflect as wide a range of mindsets as can tastefully be presented. -- FJV: 31 Aug 09

In 1970, using a fictitious riot on an imaginary university campus, I wrote a piece about newspaper bias which was reprinted here and there around the country. Titled "How To Identify Biased Writing ," the article is reprinted below. -- 21 Sep 09

2009 Circulation for Dailies
Why fear opinionated news? Fox, MSNBC, New York Times, CBS -- all good for democracy Opinionated news outlets -- pencil press or online or network or cable -- are good for democracy. From the founding of our country, the printed press has been openly partisan. Newspapers took sides as the nation became polarized over favoring Britain or France. The nephew, I think, of Benjamin Franklin ran a newspaper, American Aurora, which consistently published scurrilous material about George Washington. And, during the years of debate between the Thomas Jefferson and John Adams camps, it treated Adams the same way. Jefferson was widely thought to be guilty of what we today call "leaking" of inside information to Aurora. Walter Cronkite -- labeled the "most trusted man in the country" by the network which employed him -- was left-of-center, but that didn't stop him from being informative. Walter started as a politically neutral print journalist. Becoming a TV anchor seemed to move him toward slanting some of his reporting. Post Vietnam generations probably don't recognize his name, whether or not they now watch CBS. Only when they lie or forge documents -- consider the former famous news anchor now a disgraced has-been -- do biased news sources become a menace. The unmistakably liberal New York Times remains an important source of objective information. Conservatives are unfair when they charge the NYT with inserting liberal bias in all its reporting. A Congressman wants the Federal Communications Commission to ban Fox News and MSNBC. Who doesn't know that Fox is rightist and NBC is leftist? How does democracy suffer because their real news is accompanied by some off-the-wall political posturing? And, remember: All news isn't political. There's arts and science, recreation and health, business and sports. We are living in exciting times. The public is well-served by these sometimes exciting news sources. Only those citizens unwilling or unable to listen to more than one point-of-view might come away with a distorted picture of the real world. About media Readers and Viewers are biased, too When I go online, my homepage opens to the Drudge Report and contains tabs to reach CNN, BBC, and MSN. Politically, Drudge is decidedly Right of Center; CNN is clearly Left of Center, BBC is Balanced 96% of the time and tilts slightly Left those few times it loses its balance; and MSN is a hopeless mish-mash of celebrity and entertainment news, occasionally revealing a slant much further Left than CNN. Drudge, himself, seldom generates news these days. His Rightness shows in his selection of video clips and in the wording of his links which don't always accurately convey the content of the material the links lead to. Drudge shows true balance, though, in providing 1-click access to more than 100 columnists and 100 print and electronic media, worldwide. Those links bring information from Far Left to Far Right, from Jew and Arab, from Asia and Africa, from Europe and Latin America. A bonus is a huge Reference Desk containing everything from dictionaries to weather to maps. CNN's Leftist slant is obvious to anyone who reads or listens to more than one news source, but its slant is not so extreme as to distort the meaning of the news. CNN's scope is not nearly as extensive as Drudge's, and its coverage of sports, education, politics, medicine, health, etc., conveys the flat tone characteristic of a corporate mindset whose employees are not free to be truly objective. Unless a reader from the Right is unreasonably put off by the leftist slant, CNN's quiet, non-shouting style offers good service. BBC doesn't like the United States, but since it covers news from the leftover mindset of a colonial empire, BBC's focus is the entire world, and its anti-Americanism doesn't cloud its perspective when it is reporting about famine in the Sudan or terrorism in Southeast Asia or the performance of governments anywhere. The News Channels During the daytime, all the cable news channels have the same mix of aspiring news readers, essentially auditioning to move to prime time some day. Deliberately, they are a diverse mix: male, female, Black, Asian, Latin. These mostly young probationers ask longer and more convoluted questions of guests, both through inexperience and because they want as much face-time on-screen as possible. In prime time, the differences between the news channels are more obvious. Agree with them or not, CNN has an excellent stable of anchors and pundits. The tone is for the most part quiet, bordering on somber. The graphics and sounds used in transitioning between commercials and news segments are generally subdued. Fox, reporting the same news, comes through a bit more upbeat, uses more humor. Overall, Fox is "noisier." It has more shouters, and its transitional graphics and sounds are spastic and irritating. The content of their programs is solid, though, and their combination of style and substance accounts for Fox's long-time higher ratings than CNN's. The Left-Right slant for those two channels is discernible to those who regularly watch both. Clue: On Fox, one hears news readers reporting that the President said this or that in Cleveland. The reading might or might not be accompanied by a split screen showing the President. Total time: 27 seconds. On CNN, the President speaks for himself. Total time: 2 minutes. Surfing any time of the day or night, one cannot avoid seeing the President on CNN. Not nearly as often on Fox. Both CNN and Fox show their bias by their selection of minor news items which, even without editorial comment, show either the Right or the Left in a good or bad light. Chosen to provide Left-Right balance, the panels of pundits who editorialize on news events for CNN and Fox are equally interesting, insightful, and biased. Then there's MSNBC. Their lead pundit has the clearest, crispest voice of all the news channels. And they have their well known non-stop shouter and interrupter. But the news channel reflects the pettiness and triviality obvious on its online effort, regularly leavened with a visceral anti-conservative slant.-- all of which may explain why MSNBC consistently earns ratings lower than first place Fox and second place CNN. Why all this "ink' about the media? Because VersagiVoice has regular readers who tell me that they seldom agree with my interpretation of events, yet look forward to each update -- at the same time as they say "I wouldn't be caught dead" watching Fox or reading the Detroit Free Press with which they frequently disagree. The difference? Most of them know me, have met me, and they accept, without agreeing with, my biases, as they would accept them during table talk. So, disagreements about such matters as liquor licenses, school vouchers, parking, DDA, ZBA, CITCOM, selling Normandy Oaks don't become personalized. There is benefit from adopting the same mindset with the national media. Don't "personalize" your news sources by tuning them out because of their bias or their presentation style. At least sample them occasionally. It is instructive to expose oneself regularly to opposing viewpoints. And it neutralizes the diverse input when you observe that "the other side" has the same mix of smart, stupid, articulate, mumbling, cool, angry, benign, malicious spokespersons as your side. It has been years since I found myself angrily shouting at the television or fuming in front of my computer screen. -- FJV: 31 Aug 09 Conservatives at their worst The conservative Drudge Report, considered by friend and foe the online equivalent of the Fox News Channel, demonstrated the worst kind of partisan pettiness with a a picture-caption stating, "Obama Uses Teleprompters During Speech at Elementary School." The obvious image left with viewers who didn't bother to click to the related posting (from Yahoo News) would be that this guy can't even chat with school kids without a script. The 2-sentence posting, however, states, " . . . speaks to the media after a discussion with 6th grade students." Cheap shot, Drudge. Liberals at their worst Fully aware that many (most?) online readers skim and skip a lot, so are easily misled by headlines or picture-captions, the leftist Huntington Post prominently displays under a late January 2010 story about Obama's approval rating being the most polarized in recent history after a year in office, several favorable "related" headlines, without revealing the dates the linked stories were originally filed. "Obama's Approval Ratings Jump 6 Percent" -- story carries an October 06, 2009 dateline . . . . "Despite Dip in Job Approval, 67% View Obama as a 'Strong, Decisive Leader" -- datelined July 24, 2009 . . . "Poll: Obama Support Still Unusually High" -- posted May 29, 2009.	CNN embarrasses itself. CNN should simply have apologized or not have commented at all. Instead, the reporter who erroneously labeled a Coast Guard training exercise a security crisis, attempted to blame the Coast Guard. It must have been a slow news day, but during a press conference, journalists were at their worst trying to find fault. They asked questions equivalent to, "Shouldn't you have worn different color uniforms to let us know it was a training exercise?" David Korn: Can you discern his bias? Lead paragraphs from some of his columns. By David Corn Can Dick Cheney not read? On Tuesday, the former power-behind-the-throne reacted to the release of a 2004 CIA report examining the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (aka torture) on detained terrorist suspects by saying: The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al-Qaida. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al-Qaida members and associates ... By David Corn Who do you trust more -- the Post Office or your health insurance company? Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele and his consultants at the GOP think they have a winning line of attack on President Obama and his campaign to overhaul the health care system. It entails dissing the U.S. Postal Service. In a fundraising e-mail sent out Thursday, Steele started with a statement Obama recently made to support including a government-run health insurance plan in the health care reform package: I think private insurers should be able to compete. . . . I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are ... By David Corn Is Karl Rove a liar who should be drummed out of polite society -- or, at least, the politerati? The issue is not his conservative ideology or the still-resonating misdeeds and mistakes of the Bush presidency he made possible. The question is whether new evidence proves that Rove is a serial fibber who cannot be taken at his word. This week, the House Judiciary Committee released interviews with Rove and Harriet Miers, the former Bush White House counsel, and 5,400 pages of e-mails related to the Bush administration's controversial firing of several U.S. attorneys. Rove and other Bush ... 30 Nov 09 § Newspapers and TV abroad, online, are gaining increased U.S. readership, in large part because main stream media in America has become . . . sterile, boilerplate, one-sidedly pro Obama -- according to (1) Americans who seek out overseas news sources and (2) those sources' self-congratulatory acknowledgement of that development. Hence, both groups say, the attacks -- especially on the United Kingdom media -- by White House spokesmen. I would add that -- perhaps because of economic pressures -- even prestigious print media, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are depending more on the same services, like the Associated Press. So on major stories, if you've read one publication, you've read them all, though the headlines might differ. One subscribes to the WSJ or NYT for its specialty coverage or to read a favorite columnist. -- FJV One can ignore the uneven quality of Matt Drudge's news reporting and speculation in his online Drudge Report yet benefit from visiting the site. It contains hundreds of hyperlinks to news organizations and columnists around the world, covering politics, science, entertainment, economics, arts -- everything. It is instructive to read the range of opinion about world affairs in publications from other countries. Concerning the Mideast Mess, for example, reach out to the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz, for the Israeli perspective and to the BBC for its Arab-leaning coverage. And most days I make it a point to read one or two different American liberal and conservative columnists -- just to stay in touch. -- FJV A new Right Blog Political commentator Tucker Carlson has mounted an apparently Right-leaning website named The Daily Caller. A first look reveals a format similar to the Left-leaning Huffington Post, without Arianna's excessive celebrity/entertainment content. Give it a look. Comparing the two sites provides insight into media bias, or at least predilection. Much of the material will be from identical wire services, so the headline assigned to those pieces gives a hint. The selection of which wire service pieces to use or ignore provides another hint. And, of course, the original material by Tucker and his selected contributors says a lot about the site's corporate mindset. -- Jan 2010 Sarah Palin on Fox News Smart move. Smart for Fox, because -- love her or hate her -- Palin will draw viewers. Smart for Sarah, because -- whether or not she hopes to run for President -- the Fox work will require studying issues and dealing with personages in the unparalleled learning arena of news gathering and analysis. We'll see for ourselves whether she grows enough intellectually to convince those skeptics who insist she'll never be more than just an attractive cheer-leader. If Palin maintains her home in Alaska, she may run for U.S. Senator. If she moves her family to the Mainland, that will increase the suspicion that she'll be using her Fox News experience as the part of her preparation to run for President -- Jan 2010

More on Media Bias
In 1970, using a fictitious riot on an imaginary university campus, I wrote a piece about newspaper bias which was reprinted here and there around the country. The writing was titled "How To Identify Biased Writing, and it carried this introduction:

NEUTRAL

Nine dead at ROTC confrontation

Six students and three policemen were killed during a confrontation at the University of Id this morning.

Approximately 500 students and outsiders at the 40,000-student university stormed police lines which had been set up to prevent the protesters from approaching the campus ROTC building. Leaders of the militant students had promised publicly that, "ROTC won't be standing tonight."

At first, several of the demonstrators attempted to arch firebombs over the police lines toward the building. The police doused the students with water from fire hoses.

Shouting obscenities, some of the protesters lunged at police, ripping a few of their uniforms and bloodying a few of their faces. The students were prodded back with riot sticks.

From within the crowd came a phalanx of young people carrying shields and wearing helmets and face masks and wielding knives and handguns.

Shots rang out. Several students fell. After a moment's silence, the police began firing into the ground in front of the students and advanced, driving the students before them. Within minutes, the protesters had dispersed, leaving behind six dead, eight wounded, and 40 arrested.

Three policemen were killed, two from knife wounds; one from a gun shot; 20 were injured from rocks and knives.

(and so on, quoting sources)

NOTE:
1. The article makes it clear that a small percentage of the university's enrollment was involved in the confrontation and that a portion of the demonstrators were outsiders.

2. It carefully describes the sequence of events.

3. Although it reports that students fell to the ground when shots were fired, it does not specify who fired first and whether the felled students were hit by gunfire.

4. Although one can read one's own preconceptions into the report, the article does not take sides in the events it describes.

SLIGHTLY LEFT

Police kill students in ROTC protest

Six students were killed and eight injured when police fire-hosed them, prodded them, and shot them as they tried to enter the ROTC building at the University of Id.

The hundreds of students were protesting the war-supportive implications of the ROTC function on campus.

Police blocked entrances to the building. In frustration, the University of Id protesters three bottles and stones. A few policemen were struck and they opened fire. Even those demonstrators who had protective helmets and shields were forced to disperse.

The students had sought and had been refused permission to demonstrate in the building peacefully.

(and so on, quoting sources)

Notice these differences from the neutral report:

1. Only the deaths of the students are reported.

2. The protesters' cause is sympathetically described. They were seeking only to "enter" the ROTC building.

3. It is implied that all of the university's students sympathized with the protesters' cause.

4. The intensity of the attack against police is understated.

5. No mention is made of students being armed; their shields and helmets are described as defensive accessories.

6. It is implied that peaceful pleas had been made through channels.

FAR LEFT

Students killed, clubbed by uncontrolled police

Over 50 peace-movement students were killed, injured, and arrested when scores of policemen shot and clubbed their way into a group of demonstrators in front of the ROTC building at the University of Id.

The university was in turmoil as hundreds of students and faculty recoiled in disbelief from the unrestrained ferocity of the law officers whose only "provocation" were a few shouted catcalls and some enthusiastic shoving and pushing from students forced close to the police lines by the milling throng.

Injuries and deaths among the peace students would have been higher had not many of them anticipated the police reaction and protected themselves with helmets, shields, and face masks.

The students had received permission to hold the demonstration.

(and so on, quoting sources)

Notice these differences from the neutral report:

1. Although grammatically correct, the opening sentence gives a falsely large impression of the numbers killed.

2. There is no mention of the police dead.

3. The use of emotive descriptions gives the desired contrasts: "peace-movement students" contrasted with the "unrestrained ferocity" of the police; "shoving and pushing" from the students contrasted with "shot and clubbed" for the police.

4. Distortion of the sequence of events.

5. No mention is made of outsiders, but mention of the faculty adds to the impression that most of the university was sympathetic to or involved in the incident.

6. The use of a lie in the last sentence.

NEUTRAL

Nine dead at ROTC confrontation

Six students and three policemen were killed during a confrontation at the University of Id this morning.

At first, several of the demonstrators attempted to arch firebombs over the police lines toward the building. The police doused the students with water from fire hoses.

Shouting obscenities, some of the protesters lunged at police, ripping a few of their uniforms and bloodying a few of their faces. The students were prodded back with riot sticks.

From within the crowd cam a phalanx of young people carrying shields and wearing helmets and face masks and wielding knives and handguns.

Three policemen were killed, two from knife wounds; one from a gun shot; 20 were injured from rocks and knives.

(and so on, quoting sources)

NOTE:
1. The article makes it clear that a small percentage of the university's enrollment was involved in the confrontation and that a portion of the demonstrators were outsider.

2. It carefully describes the sequence of events.

3. Although it reports that students fell to the ground when shots were fired, it does not specify who fired first and whether the felled students were hit by gunfire.

4. Although one can read one's own preconceptions into the report, the article does not take sides in the events it describes.

SLIGHTLY RIGHT

Police killed protecting ROTC

Three policemen were killed and 20 hurt while defending the ROTC building from destruction by militant students at the University of Id.

Shouting obscenities, about 500 armed and helmeted rebellious youths and outsiders charged the 30 police officers who had first fought them off with night-sticks and water cannon. After three policemen had been killed and several injured, the lawmen swept forward to clear the area.

Three or four of the resisting rebels were killed, and several were injured in the disturbance. Another 40 were arrested.

Leaders of the demonstrators had pledged to destroy the ROTC building today. During the violent confrontation, firebombs were thrown at the building, but were put out by the policemen and university employees.

Some of the militants claimed they had planned only a peaceful demonstration and that the police overreacted.

(and so on, quoting sources)

Notice these differences from the neutral report:

1. The dead and injured policemen are mentioned in the lead; the killed students are mentioned casually two paragraphs later.

2. The actual sequence of events is changed, so the reader is left with the erroneous impression of the actions of the participants.

3. It is implied that all 500 of the demonstrators were armed and were attacking the police.

4. The word "student" is rarely used. Instead, the activists are tagged with emotive labels like "militants," "rebellious," "demonstrators."

5. The students' claim to have sought permission for a peaceful demonstration is presented in such a way as to make the claim doubtful.

FAR RIGHT

Hoods kill police while attacking ROTC

Twenty-three policemen were killed and injured by knife-wielding, gun-carrying, helmeted hoods who were trying to burn down the ROTC building at the University of Id.

The rioters shot, knifed, and clubbed the lawmen in their unsuccessful attempt to get close enough to the building to destroy it.

Professional agitators from outside the university led the attack. Police had been alerted by arrogant public threats to burn the building earlier in the week.

(and so on, quoting sources)

Notice these differences from the neutral report:

1. The opening line exaggerates the number of policemen killed in much the same way that the far left does the opposite.

2. No attempt is made to present the students' point of view.

3. There is no pretense of objectivity. The police are the good guys doing their duty; the protesters are rioters, hoodlums, agitators.

4. The account is so intent on setting the law-and-order tone that it gives no indication of the number of students or police involved or of the sequence of events.

5. The report does not mention the student dead.

By Editor & Publisher Staff

Published: October 26, 2009 9:40 AM ET

NEW YORK Here are the top 25 newspapers in the country ranked by daily (Monday-Friday) circulation for the six months ending September 2009 from the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The percent change compares the same six-month period ending September 2008.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL -- 2,024,269 -- 0.61%
USA TODAY -- 1,900,116 -- (-17.15%)
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- 927,851 -- (-7.28%)
LOS ANGELES TIMES -- 657,467 -- (-11.05%)
THE WASHINGTON POST -- 582,844 -- (-6.40%)

DAILY NEWS (NEW YORK) -- 544,167 -- (-13.98%)
NEW YORK POST -- 508,042 -- (-18.77%)
CHICAGO TRIBUNE -- 465,892 -- (-9.72%)
HOUSTON CHRONICLE -- 384,419 -- (-14.24%)
THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER -- 361,480 -- N/A

NEWSDAY -- 357,124 -- (-5.40%)
THE DENVER POST -- 340,949 -- N/A
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC -- 316,874 -- (-12.30%)
STAR TRIBUNE, MINNEAPOLIS -- 304,543 -- (-5.53%)
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES -- 275,641 -- (-11.98%)

The PLAIN DEALER, CLEVELAND -- 271,180 -- (-11.24%)
DETROIT FREE PRESS (e) -- 269,729 -- (-9.56%)
THE BOSTON GLOBE -- 264,105 -- (-18.48%)
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS -- 263,810 -- (-22.16%)
THE SEATTLE TIMES -- 263,588 -- N/A

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE -- 251,782 -- (-25.82%)
THE OREGONIAN -- 249,163 -- (-12.06%)
THE STAR-LEDGER, NEWARK -- 246,006 -- (-22.22%)
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE -- 242,705 -- (-10.05%)
ST. PETERSBURG (FLA.) TIMES -- 240,147 -- (-10.70%)

(e) Individually paid core newspaper five-day average reflects a reduced home-delivery schedule