MetaChat - Dualism in news reporting

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

03 May 2006

Dualism in news reporting →[More:]

It's really getting old, the idea that objective reporting requires all stories to have exactly two sides. Never more, never less.

Interesting example:
While some say June 6, 2006, is a day to fear for its biblical significance, officials see little to dread. -- Denver Post

Doesn't this phrasing seem to emphasize the latter position as being more correct? If it was written: "While officials say we have little to dread about June 6, 2006, others say it is a day to fear for its biblical significance," doesn't that seem to suggest the author believes in the biblical stance?

So not only is this dualistic pseudo-objectiveness unnatural, but it's also shallow. It's a nod in the general direction of objective reporting, all the while allowing the reporter's bias to be communicated. Is anyone in the target audience so concerned with fair and balanced^TM reporting, that they would be up in arms if only one side of a particular story was presented?

The more treacherous examples are cases where a very small minority opinion is given more weight because it receives equal air time. Have you seen a report come out on global warming without also reading about the "naysayers"? People who should be a footnote in the back pages of the newspaper are given a disproportionate level of emphasis. The scientific community, with its rigorous methodology, backed up by peer-reviewed publications and duplication of results, gets the same amount of respect as Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel in your average news reporting.

Finally, when did news organizations stop caring about actually investigating? After seeing "Good Night, and Good Luck," and being too young to have lived through McCarthyism, it was very moving to see that people were willing to stand up to a government that had stepped over the line. This kind of courage is completely absent from modern media.

EOR
(end of rant)

post by: knave at: 01:23 | 6 comments

Swedens national holiday day has biblical significance? Weird.

Ok, Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel being interviewed about major scientific breakthroghs is really getting on my nerves. That has got to stop!

posted by dabitch 03 May | 02:10

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy has some similar underlying fault lines.

The sad thing is that the extremist, radical Republicans have figured out how to abuse this system. They come up with the most batshitinsane stuff -- all illegals are serial killers, we haven't been ruthless enough in Iraq (both just this week) -- and know that they've just shifted the bar a little. Enough of that, and basic, moderate positions can be marginalized as unacceptable.

posted by stilicho 03 May | 02:27

The fallacy of logical equivalence gets used everywhere, not just in the media. It's a very popular tool for Internet apologists and sophists of all shapes and colors.

One often hears rejoinders of any criticism of Bush, for example, using a false equivalence with Clinton. Awhile back, a personality responded to my criticism of Pope Ratzinger's Nazi membership, suggesting that it was okay because he was young and everyone did it at the time, begging the question of whether this equivalence is morally justified. Evolution and creationism are put on the same pedestal with this slimy rhetorical trick. Etc. etc.

By presenting vague and superficial similarities in the presentation and substance of these arguments, people usually process what they've seen by applying equal weight to the truth of the ideas being presented. In the end, truth becomes incommunicable.

As far as the media goes, this book from James Fallows is an excellent overview of the rhetorical tricks journalists and editors play to give equal credence to unequal ideas. In doing so, Fallows believes this helps undermine our democracy by reducing our ability to act on truthful (useful) knowledge. I think I would agree with him.

posted by AlexReynolds 03 May | 07:33

I totally agree with your point, knave, and Alex's comments, but in terms of your question:

Doesn't this phrasing seem to emphasize the latter position as being more correct? If it was written: "While officials say we have little to dread about June 6, 2006, others say it is a day to fear for its biblical significance," doesn't that seem to suggest the author believes in the biblical stance?

Yes, but I have to disagree a bit about motivation. As a structural device, the writer will usually conclude with the point that they are getting ready to elaborate on in the next paragraph. If you are going to talk about groups promoting the use of paper bags instead of plastic bags, you won't phrase your lead as:

"Paper bags represent a much more environmentally friendly way of getting your apples and oranges from point A to point B, but store managers say their customers are more interested in convenience than ecology.

Paper bags offer several important benefits over plastic, according to experts..."

This seems unnatural and disruptive; as a reader, after the first paragraph you expect to hear more about why customers want plastic.

It's more natural to say:

Though store managers report that customers seem to prefer the convenience of plastic bags, the Save the Earth Foundation and other organizations stress that paper bags represent a much more environmentally friendly way of getting your apples and oranges from point A to point B.

Paper bags offer several important benefits over plastic, according to experts..."

So, most of the time, I think, the opposing ideas will be organized with a view to what exposition comes next in the article.

posted by taz 03 May | 08:37

But when the articles themselves are only being written because of a GOP or lobbyist or PR blastfax or call, their spin always gets prominence. The truth is just someone else's opinion and doesn't need to be elaborated, is their take. Whenever you see any article with none or just one quote from one side on an issue (usually the side with facts) and many quotes from the other side (often with "Institute" or organization affiliations added), you can tell where and how the article is biased.

posted by amberglow 03 May | 09:03

Some people need to take a fucking laxative and go home. No phoning reporters while on the throne, either.

posted by trondant 03 May | 11:35

← Is it just me or is YSI slow today? || Metachat Craft Ring →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN