News-Record.com

Your editorial department may have nothing to do with your news department, but that doesn't mean your news department doesn't editorialize. Your logic is designed to get someone to chase the wrong rabbit.

I'll take your deal because it is likely the only admission I'll ever get that liberal bias occasionally invades your news division. Still, your deal is probably not a wise decision to offer as the news editor- "So maybe do have a liberal bias sometimes, but it's not changing anyone's opinion so what difference does it make?"

What if I reject your offer because of the second premise that it's not that bad. Does that mean your admission is no longer valid? If it is conditional, then you aren't really interested in the truth, because truth is not conditional.

I'm not sure who made the quote in your comment, Sam, but I want to make sure everyone knows that it wasn't me.

If you reject the second premise, are you proof of the results of the Princeton study? Because you think we have a terrible bias doesn't necessarily mean that we do.

Calling the N&R "liberal" is like calling Jerry Falwell "the soul of Christian love and charity."

It simply isn't so.

The "liberal media" is a myth, pure and simple.

Regards,
TL

The quotes were a paraphrase of what I understood your comments to read, should have been "i.e." I;m not saying I reject the second premise. I am suggesting that by even offering the deal, you are making an admission of sorts, and that admission should not be conditioned on the second premise. Either bias leaks into your stories or it does not.

I will concede that in some cases, a biased story may not have much impact on anyones opinion about that particular subject, however, as a whole I do believe it does influence people. For example, i believe your papers obsession with race does leave the impression over time that this area is a racist hotbed. That may not even be a left/right issue, but there is no doubt that your paper has a point of view that is invasive in your news coverage.

That should be "pervasive", not "invasive" although invasive is also an accurate description.

Sure, I'll take the deal, since it responds precisely to the actual state of affairs: a slight liberal bias influencing the selection
and writing of news. It's not oppressive, but it's there. No matter the level of professionalism, bias finds its way into language. It's inevitable, and since the vast majority of journalists are liberal, the bias is liberal.

If I killed myself and my wife blamed it on Mexican immigration, there would be no article about my "martyrdom" in the paper because that story doesn't resonate with a liberal worldview. When Margaret Moffit Banks writes a story about a welfare mom (oops, there's my conservative bias influencing language) who can't find the housing she prefers, there's a subtle liberal bias at work: she doesn't ask, for example, whether federal resources _are_ actually being reduced, as someone tells her. I would research the question because I see discretionary spending exploding under Bush; as a liberal passively committed to the Republicans-cut-social-spending meme, Banks simply repeats the claim and moves on. Every article she writes shows a slight and subtle liberal bias--I'd bet my house she voted for Kerry. But overall, she's a solid reporter. With a Stan Swofford, say, one approaches a more rigorously neutral journalism--I'd pick him for an old-style yellowdog Democrat, but I wouldn't bet anything on it, and I couldn't document bias except in the vaguest, most impressionist way.

What drives conservatives nuts is the media's insistence that it is strictly neutral. It's no more true of the NY Times than it is of Fox news.

Samuel, can you tell me what it was that I wrote in that post that made you conclude that what I actually meant was, "So maybe do have a liberal bias sometimes, but it's not changing anyone's opinion so what difference does it make?"

I agree with you that one part of the deal isn't predicated on the other. I was trying to make the point that we may not being the only party bringing biases to the table.

You said "I'll accept the possibility that what we're accused of could be true sometimes". Your first paragraph explained that you have been accused of bias. Therefore, if you accept the possibility that it could be true, you are saying "maybe we do have a liberal bias sometimes"

On part two, your story was essentially that the influence of bias on people was not as great as people who point out bias believe. Hence, the second part of my manufactured quote. If I'm missing some connection, or misread the point of your article, please clarify it.

Also note that Brian444 stated exactly what I have been saying forever- that is that it is not the actual bias that is so annoying, but the refusal to admit it exists. I also find it interesting that you concede most of your critics accuse you of a liberal bias instead of a conservative one- shouldn't that tell you something?

I got the first part, but I'm confused by the second part. I don't read that article -- and I'm not saying -- that it translates into it not making any difference. The lesson, though, might be not to put words into another's mouth.

I appreciate that you and Brian are saying that you want me to cede a liberal bias. Rather than making broad-brush statements, it is more helpful to provide specific examples of where that bias exists in the newspaper, outside the editorial pages. Those would help us improve.

John, I can see your point about the second part. But I still think that my analysis of the clip was still accurate in part. Of course, you could read the clip to mean that people cannot control their own biases as well. If that is so, then perhaps a survey of the political affiliations and voting record of your news staff might be in order. If they are overwhelmingly Democrat, than perhaps this article would support the contention of many that liberal bias enters into their writing at times because despite being told in J school to not let it happen, "they simply can't comply, even when money is at stake." If they can't comply, and they are overwhelmingly Democrat, maybe the only way to address it to help you improve would be to have greater political diversity in your news room.

It's funny how you believe someones belief system (such as a political belief) will not shade their writing, but some immutable characteristic such as sex or race is supposed to bring a new perspective. To me that is backwards because a person's beliefs are more likely to influence how they act (or write) than their sex or color. How likely is it that a black female Democrat will write the same story as a black female Republican? The difference in how the story comes out will not be due to sex or race, but what the person believes. Anyway, I digress...

So maybe the article has more than one point. I am not certain which one you are trying to push, I cannot say.

Hey, I've posted specifically on three different "straight" news stories in the past week that I've claimed show liberal bias.

(1) The article on the Mexican-American "martyr"
(2) Banks's article on the "welfare mom" and housing
(3) The "white men sexually objectify black women" article

Who's "broad brushing"? Pick one and I'll be happy to argue the point further.

Here’s a fourth: the article on the immigrant mother in yesterday’s paper.

I contend that the story does not report objectively on a case in which an illegal immigrant (a term scrupulously avoided in the story) claims the right to remain in America based on the fact that her son and husband are American citizens. In numerous ways, the article skews toward the mother’s perspective and against the govt’s. More pointedly, it is biased toward the mother’s perspective, and in a way that can be fairly characterized as liberal—i.e. liberals are more likely to support the mother’s argument than are conservatives, who are more likely to support the deportation of illegal immigrants.

This article exemplifies a ubiquitous genre of liberal journalism: the victim story. The victim is almost always a victim of conservative political policy: welfare reform (“how will I feed my kids?”), free trade (“I lost my job to China and don’t know what to do”), medicare reform (“the govt’s paying $500 billion for my medicine and I can’t figure the darned form out”). The victim is almost never of liberal political policy: you will google in vain for “the Mexicans took my job” or “I went out of business because of the Americans with Disabilities act.” There are, similarly, few such stories about beneficiaries of conservative policy (“We’re selling tons of widgets to Mexico. Thanks, NAFTA!,” “I got kicked off welfare and did great. Thanks, Bill Clinton!”, “Cool, all my arthritis medicine is free now!”). My claim: as semi-soft news, these stories skew liberal.

One way that, generically speaking, they do is in the victims they select. That is true of this particular story. As it engages the question of the rights of illegal immigrants, it selects a tremendously sympathetic subject. We are reading about Myrna Dick, not Jose Lopez, the (purely hypothetical) illegal immigrant who killed two kids while driving drunk. Of the millions of illegal immigrants, Myrna Dick is, in today’s paper, their representative, a function Doris Meissner affirms explicitly in the story: MD and her family “illustrate” millions of people in the country today. If 65% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be deported (as some survey data suggests—based on wording, etc.), then this story will tend to persuade some of them otherwise. The story has, in other words, an agenda.

More specifically, this story is biased toward the mother’s perspective in these ways:

(1) The story emotionally attaches the reader to the victim—er, subject—
of the story to make an implicit argument against the govt’s policy. We begin as Myrna “cajoles” her son with “Spanish phrases.” And they’re not just Spanish, they’re “soft.” The mother loves her child. That’s where we begin, and we being there because the story wants to persuade us that the govt wants to “deny” mother and child this kind of connection, just as it once tried to deny Zachary the snugness of his cornflowered-colored jumpsuit and the suburban Eden invoked thereby. Bad govt!!! The story begins and ends with this mode of emotional appeal.

(2) Doris Meissner is “former INS Commissioner.” That’s pretty impressive, that a former govt official would argue against the govt’s position. But what does she do for a living now? Perchance is her paycheck coming from a group with vested interests in changing immigration laws to favor immigrants? Surely she’s not a lobbyist!! In fact she is. She works for Migration Policy Institute, a “non-partisan” think tank begun by Carnegie (liberal) that, judging from a brief scan of its web site, skews slightly center-left and advocates for migrants in a responsible way. That should be noted.

(3) “Everyone agrees that Myrna crossed the desert in 1998 to go to her grandmother’s funeral in Chihuahua, Mexico. She said smugglers led her and another woman through the sand for hours, where border agents found them on a deserted hill.” Although totally incoherent (where did she cross the desert from? Where was this agreed-upon deserted hill? In Mexico? What, precisely, are the facts that “everyone agrees” on? ), the incoherence serves an agenda: she’s a good granddaughter, and she didn’t—insofar as the grammar is concerned—illegally cross the border. She was “led” by smugglers—they, not her, are the agents of the sentence. She didn’t “pay smugglers to lead her across the border,” which sends a different message. Moreover, “she” gets to provide the account, not the govt. Language matters.

(4) When she is arrested, the account comes first from her attorney, who is allowed to say what she says she didn’t do. When the govt’s account is provided, she is parenthetically allowed to deny the accusation “(something she denies)”. Again, the writing subtly privileges her account, not the govt’s.

(5) The quotations are unbalanced. Carl Rusnock must wait until the 15th paragraph to provide the govt’s argument. On the other side, Meissner, Sumners, and Brady are allowed to speak (implicitly or explicitly) against it, and Meissner gets first crack.

(6) A “judge gave immigration officials the right to bar her from the US for life, separating her from her son, Zachary, and her American husband.” Not necessarily: the whole family could potentially move to Mexico. But the separation of mother and child is more dramatic and emotionally persuasive, reiterating the persistent theme of the govt’s callousness.

(7) She was “nauseous with morning sickness” as she was bused from a detention facility. More sympathy, although morning sickness has nothing to do with the policy at issue.

(8) She is an “evangelical Christian woman.” Take note, evangelical Christians and other right-wingers! True, there’s a rationale for this piece of info, but not much of one.

Conclusion: subtle liberal bias.

no deal. want respect? earn it!

Dear John, may I take your silence as silent admiration for the persuasiveness of my detailed post above claiming liberal bias in an article selected from that day's paper?

There should be a bias in news organizations, a progressive one. I would hope that most journalists enter the business with a love for our country/state/city and a desire to make it even better. People like Murrow and our other great journalists certainly thought that their actions would change the country for the better, expose corruption, and chide incompetence. To me intergrity, competence and concern for the common good is the bedrock of Progressiveness, whether you consider yourself to the right or left.

But the right seems to label any news organization that questions its status quo liberal. Maybe it is just easier than engaging in substantive debate. Given the widespread overuse of the tatic of name calling by the right, it is difficult to take these mud slings with any credibility.