e. magill's Intrigue |
| Back |
The Metaphorical Mona Lisa and the Political Coin: “Hunting” for Media BiasConservatives complain about the liberal news media and the Hollywood leftists. Liberals complain about conservative talk radio and FOXNews. Extremes on either side of the bipartisan spectrum will tell you, if you really get them going, that there is media bias everywhere they look.I happen to think this is a natural and inevitable phenomenon. Once you form an opinion on an issue, especially a political one, you’ll consider yourself pretty well versed on the subject, at least philosophically if not academically. Therefore, when a news anchor starts talking about that issue, you are immediately on the defensive, and, in that state, you become highly susceptible to anything that implies you to be wrong. In fact, a staunch liberal and a staunch conservative could sit down and watch the exact same news report and probably come out convinced that it was biased towards the other side. However, this does not mean that bias does not exist; of course it does. It’s everywhere. You can’t read the New York Times or listen to Rush Limbaugh and honestly think that there’s no spin going on. The truth is always somewhere in the middle (or, more accurately, in the gestalt), but it can be extremely difficult to find sometimes. I wish to do an academic exercise in the pursuit of media bias. It is my intention to illustrate that bias is sometimes subtle and sometimes gross, but that it is always there. I also want to show the bipartisans out there that the bias pretty much goes both ways on an even basis. The following is a list of headlines that appeared on eight different news sources on the morning of October 3, 2003. The sources were chosen because each of them proclaims to be balanced (for example, I left out things like National Review, because it is simply not helpful for the purposes of this exercise to point out bias where it is proudly paraded). All eight headlines point to similar stories about the same event, but each has its own unique wording and focus. While I prefer to believe that, for the most part, the people who wrote them probably did not have any purposeful agenda or deliberate bias in writing these headlines, many of them have, nonetheless, illustrated that bias exists and is unavoidable. (Note that some of these headlines have changed since their first appearance, and one or two have changed in very interesting ways.) The story that each of these headlines focuses on is the recent report given to Congress by one David Kay, concerning the progress being made on the attempt to uncover the full extent of Iraq’s former WMD program. It is a very difficult story to talk about without revealing some political skew, since people on all sides of the political arguments surrounding this report have very deep convictions on the subject. I hereby acknowledge that I too have my bias in this regard, but I disclaim that the reasons for my bias are based on grueling and extensive research and tireless debate. Just so you know for sure where I stand, I believe that Saddam Hussein had an extensive WMD program, operating even as the U.S. was throwing its diplomatic weight right outside of his country’s borders. I commented before the war that it would probably take at least a year after the invasion to find WMDs in Iraq, due to the complexity of Hussein’s deceit, and my certainty that actual, physical, prohibited weapons or incontrovertible evidence that they were made will be found (or have already been found) has not wavered since. I read Kay’s report and believe that it illustrates, quite confidently, that several WMD programs were up and running at the time of the invasion and that several more were on hold, probably waiting for sanctions against Iraq to be lifted. The report points to several prohibited missile systems and UAVs and a flurry of facets that were omitted from Iraq’s “last chance” declaration. Therefore, I agree with President Bush when he states that Kay’s report further vindicates one of the rationales for going to war with Iraq, and I see nothing in the report that implies that WMDs will never be found, although it clearly states that they haven’t been found yet. So, now that I’ve rendered naked my own editorial opinions on the matter, let me return to the academic exercise. The first three headlines on my list are, as I see it, biased towards the administration. The first two are directly quoting Bush, and, in so doing, have focused their attention on Bush’s defense rather than on his challenges. This, in and of itself, is biased, because it highlights Bush’s speech about the report. Bush’s speech, as the focus of the story, is made more important than the actual report. The ABC headline goes so far as to quote Bush when he calls Saddam Hussein “a danger to the world,” which clearly draws the focus of the story away from its principle pieces and diverts it towards Saddam Hussein. To a hardcore left-winger opposed to the war in Iraq, this kind of diversion might recall the sentiments expressed by the other side when it stated things like, “If you don’t want to go to war with Iraq, you must love Saddam Hussein.” This headline fails to take into account the integral pieces of the story and also fails to demonstrate anything useful. We all pretty much know what President Bush thinks of Saddam, and it is not helpful to say that that is the most important focus of a story about a reaction to a report about WMDs in Iraq. The FOX headline is similar, but only quotes Bush as saying the report justifies the war. This is still a diversion from fact and a suggestion towards a certain and specific political leaning. It seems to imply that the report is directly related to the rationale for going to war, and it doesn’t give any hint of the opposition that is claiming the report to be evidence that the war in Iraq was un-justified. Finally, headline (c), from the Washington Times, simply states that evidence of WMD intent has been found in Iraq. Automatically, the Washington Times has thrown away the idea that the report might be false or that it doesn’t demonstrate anything. In other words, it is showing a fallacy of omission, showing the reader only one side of the coin. As a point of fact, the report also states that no actual WMDs have been found, but the Washington Times’ headline doesn’t acknowledge that. The Washington Times may be showing the most bias of the first three sources, simply because it is speaking for the report and citing it as incontrovertible fact. However, by not quoting Bush, it isn’t putting the limelight directly on the internal politics of the matter. It is a story about Iraq, and the headline doesn’t mention anything about the report justifying or unjustifying war. Headlines (d) and (e) seem to be trying the hardest to state fact and avoid drawing conclusions. They do point to the political situation, but are trying not to imply anything about it. While one could argue that the headlines demonstrate the notion that Bush needs to justify war because of the report (implying that the report is thwarting Bush in some way), I’d argue that it is a pretty straight-forward fact that Bush was on the defensive in his speech, using the report to justify a war that a growing number of people think, in hindsight, was unjustified. The BBC headline, (e), is on the lower end of the spectrum because of the word “undeterred”, which suggests that the report was a negative blow to the administration (not to mention the fact that we have no basis for knowing how “deterred” Bush is by the speech), while the MSNBC headline, (d), is worded in such a way that it doesn’t really imply that the report either supports or contradicts the president’s position. Then you get to the last three, which I think are the most biased headlines in my list against the administration. The New York Times headline points to the fact that Kay’s report states very clearly that no WMDs have been found in Iraq. However, I think the headline is actually lying (either deliberately or not), because it says that the report states that no “illicit arms” have been found in Iraq. As another point of fact, the report does talk about prohibited missile systems and UAVs that have been found by the team, and these, by the U.N. definition at least, constitute “illicit arms”. I acknowledge, however, that this might be an overly semantical argument that wouldn’t have been a problem for me if “illicit arms” were replaced with “weapons of mass destruction”. But, even putting that aside, the headline shows a bias of omission, a comparable and reciprocal bias to the Washington Times headline above it. It is true that the report indicates that no WMDs have been found by the team in Iraq, but it is also true that the report points to evidence of very extensive WMD programs that have been found. Once again, the reader is only being shown one side of the coin. Headline (g) doesn’t mention the report or Bush’s defensive speech, but instead states that no banned weapons have been found in Iraq. This is biased in the same ways as the New York Times headline, but it is showing additional bias in that it is stating one of the report’s arguments without acknowledging that the argument is coming from the report. Again, like the Washington Times' headline, it is biased because it fails to show the reader the other side of the coin and further because it is treating the report as incontrovertible fact. Last but definitely not least is CNN’s headline, “Iraq weapons hunter facing tough questions”. In my humble opinion, this may be the most biased headline of all, because it assumes that (1) the report is raising questions, (2) the questions raised by the report are “tough”, (3) Kay (the “Iraq weapons hunter” in question) is facing these questions, and (4) his facing of these questions is the only part of the story worth examining. The word “hunter” also concerns me, because it implies, at least to me, that he’s on a “hunt” to find something that probably is not there. This headline bleeds bias. It automatically calls the report into question, implying very directly that the report is the subject of extreme and well-founded doubt for which Kay has to struggle to answer. It doesn’t even mention the side of the coin it is discussing, much less does it show the reader the reverse side. It doesn’t mention Bush’s defense of the report, or any defense for that matter, but instead highlights, underlines, and shouts in boldface that the report is being challenged. This headline only wants to inform its reader of the doubt, automatically leading him or her by not-too-subtle psychological manipulation down the garden path to saying that Kay’s report is a stack of speculative garbage. It is being challenged, of course, but that fact is only one small part of an extremely multifaceted story. And that’s the “a-ha!” of my argument. Bias comes, not necessarily from rhetoric, inaccuracy, or opinionated speech, but from omission, especially when it comes to political issues. CNN is a news organization that I have grown to personally distrust because it tends to show facts, figures, and statistics that all always seem to help only one side of an argument. I’m not claiming that CNN has a purposeful agenda, but... No, scratch that. I am saying that CNN has a purposeful political agenda, or at least that I believe it does. But I also think FOXNews has a purposeful political agenda. My point is that you should always be on guard for such agendas, whether they be purposeful or not. Never trust a single news source, even if it gives you perfectly accurate information every time. It is not usually the accuracy that should be called into question, but the inherent implication that comes from deciding which stories are important and how one should examine those stories. Freedom of the press is something I revere and admire, but it does have side effects of which we all have a responsibility to be aware. You should not base your opinions, especially on political matters, on a single news source or even a small number of news sources. Get as much of the picture as possible before you formulate a judgment. Think of it this way. Could you expect to know and appreciate the Mona Lisa for what it is if you are only given a report describing the lower left corner of it? It doesn’t matter how accurately and meticulously the lower left corner of the painting is described, because you still can’t accurately postulate the rest of it. To be honest (and to switch back to my original metaphor), I have more admiration for sources that are up-front with their bias, because then you know which side of the coin you’re being shown. You can go to one biased source and get a detailed description of one side of the coin and then you can find another openly biased source that will show you the other side with ease. If you’re really determined, you can even get the more obscure positions that describe the edges of your coin. Maybe, after that, just maybe, you can see the coin for what it’s really worth. |
| Copyright ©2003 e. magill. All rights reserved. |