Fraters Libertas

The Daily Slog

One of the problems in the identification and explanation of media bias to the disbelievers out there is overcoming one's natural defense mechanisms to it. Those that have a conservative point of view have been dealing with this bias for so long, from so many different media outlets, that it no longer immediately registers as we read articles or watch broadcasts. It's usually there, but it tends to fade into the background noise. In an attempt to glean some actual information, you find yourself too busy subconsciously negotiating around value laden terms, mischaracterizations, half truths, and selected omissions to be able to point out even egregious examples.

But even if you're not immediately aware of biased reporting, I find symptoms do present themselves. Specifically, the sick feeling in your stomach of 'here we go again' chronic exasperation and the psychic fatigue brought on by having to work three times as hard slogging through, filtering, and processing what real information there is.

This afternoon I had these symptoms and I initially didn't know why. I was prepared to blame the quart of gin I knocked back with my cheerios and pop tarts this morning, until I remembered - I just finished reading the Star Tribune. Of course! I was reading a news article from the dominant newspaper in town and they were recklessly disparaging my core beliefs and attempting to sway public opinion through biased reporting of supposed facts. Now I feel much better!

Excerpts from an Associated Press report by Robert Tanner on yesterday's Republican election gains (my emphasis throughout):

With a presidential campaign only months away, Republicans picked up two governorships in the South, ousting Mississippi's Democratic incumbent and seizing Kentucky's top job for the first time in 32 years.

Victories by Republicans characterized as violently taking something by force, rather than the majority of the population freely choosing these candidates as best able to do the job. Any wonder how this seamlessly morphs into someone like Peter Jennings announcing the Republican victories in 1994 as a "national temper tantrum"?

President Bush loomed large in both campaigns, and he's sure to claim a boost from the victories.

Claim a boost? How about reporting that he's likely to get a boost from these victories? That seems like objective, reasonable speculation to me. I'm not even sure what definition of the word "claim" Tanner is using. Is he saying Bush is likely to "maintain" or "state it as a fact"? Therefore, framing this "boost" argument as nothing more than some a partisan attempt by the President himself to capitalize on these elections, and that the objective truth lies somewhere else. Or by "claim" does he mean "to take as one's rightful owner." Again, with the aggressive, violent imagery (and in the context of a "boost," nonsensical).

Based on the dual meaning confusion created by the word "claim," it should have been edited out anyway. (Is there any possible misinterpretation with the word "get" as a substitute?) But I suppose without "claim," how else would they cast aspersions on a fact that any reasonable observer would say is true. (Yes, Bush will get a boost from this - live with it.)

But in the Kentucky and Mississippi races, campaigns tried out strategies that could play out in next year's presidential race. And Republicans were already crowing.

"The Democrat strategy was negative attacks and tying Ernie Fletcher to President Bush and making this race a referendum on the president's economic policies,'' Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie said. "The Democrats had their referendum and got their answer."

Crowing? Making loud, shrill sounds? Exulting, gloating, bragging, boasting? Now there's an objective characterization of an interview subject's comments.

Instead how about saying this is how Republicans "analyzed" the outcomes? Or even, this is how they "positioned" them. And if you're going to get in the business of characterizing one party's comments as spin, how about then quoting some Democrats, and characterizing their comments the same way?

The most charitable definition of the world "crow" would be "to utter a sound expressive of pleasure." And I suppose the Republicans were happy about the outcomes (although in context with that quote, it would still mean bragging). But if the pleasure aspect is what Tanner intended to convey, why use the word "crow," which has other definitions that are more commonly used and all with pejorative meanings? It makes me wonder if this is a technique common to biased writers. That is, use a word with multiple meanings, and if you're ever called to account, you can claim the least objectionable one - no matter how egregious the other definitions may be, or which the reader is likely to infer.

Racial issues flared in both states - Musgrove ran ads reminding voters of a divisive and unsuccessful 2001 referendum to change the state flag to remove a Confederate emblem, and Election Day brought claims of intimidation at largely black precincts. Kentucky Democrats complained about a GOP plan to put observers at black precincts, but no problems materialized.

Then later:

Philadelphia's Street defeated Katz in a rematch of their 1999 battle. Street got a bounce in the polls after it was learned that the FBI bugged his City Hall office; Street and his supporters have portrayed the investigation as an attempt by the Bush administration to bring down a black politician. Federal prosecutors have denied that.

Tanner framing the outcomes of three separate elections yesterday with racial overtones, with the Republicans as the villain in each. In Mississippi, as "divisive" defenders of the Confederacy, in Kentucky as those attempting to disenfranchise blacks at the polls (despite the fact absolutely nothing actually happened, there were just allegations), and in Philadelphia, as those attempting to "bring down" a black politician.

I especially like that last one, where Tanner is suddenly an objective conveyance for differing opinions. No characterizing this time, no "crowing" or "claiming" here. Street's supporters say the Bush administration is bugging his office in an attempt to ruin him based on his race, and Federal prosecutors deny it. Who's to say who's right and wrong in this one? These are just the plain facts of the debate.

And with that last cogent point of criticism, the sickness has abated. No stomach aches, no psychic fatigue weighing me down anymore. I'm purged and once again I feel great. And just in time to read the Brian Lambert column. How's this for an objective headline:

"Cowards at CBS Play Us For Fools"

Given my good mood and trusting nature, I'll just have to assume he's talking about that network's continuing employment of Andy Rooney.