Hardly a day or week goes by without hearing about a complaint of media bias, generally from the nation’s right. To the right wing, there is little doubt that the nation’s media appear to be biased in one direction. What is perhaps not as well publicized, perhaps due to the fact that the left do not have their own FOX Noise to response, but to the left, the nation’s mainstream media appear biased in the other direction.
The truth as usual is probably found somewhere in between. However, from my perspective one of the most interesting observations made by leftist critic Noam Chomsky in his book “Manufacturing Consent” was the reliance on the media for official government sources. At a national level depending on the regime, that may taint news coverage, although these days media attempt to balance most reports by covering the views of the opposition.
I had often noticed as the recipient of news releases from various local agencies, the tendency for the local newspapers to reprint these news releases as stories with little to no follow up on their own. In particular, UC Davis on almost a daily basis will release at least one news story with a press release, the District Attorney’s office will on a periodic basis, as will the county.
I first really noticed it after I read the District Attorney’s Office Press Release on the Ajay Dev sentencing. There were no other reporters in the courtroom, and thus both the Woodland Daily Democrat and the Davis Enterprise had to rely on the DA’s Press Release and previous press clippings (much of that also from Press Releases) for a story.
But this past week, illustrates the ability of the District Attorney’s office to generate favorable press coverage at the drop of a press release.
Here is the press release about a Jury Tampering that occurred during a domestic violence trial that just concluded.
District Attorney’s Release:
District Attorney Jeff Reisig announced that on August 21, 2009, after a three day trial, a Yolo County jury convicted Miguel Dagoberto Lopez, of Woodland, of felony domestic violence for the February 2009 beating of the mother of his child, Angela Gonzales, despite the victim’s efforts to lie for Mr. Lopez and even tamper with the jury using MySpace. According to Ms. Gonzales’s initial report to the police, Mr. Lopez became angry when the victim did not have money for cigarettes and so he struck her in the face repeatedly while she held the couple’s 16-month-old child, then held her by her hair and battered her head against the floor of their apartment approximately eight times. During the trial, however, Ms. Gonzales testified that she lied about the assault because she was angry with Mr. Lopez, that Mr. Lopez has never struck her, and that the swelling and bruising on her face, which was photographed, was the result of her throwing up due to migraine headaches. In response, prosecuting attorney Ryan J. Couzens introduced evidence showing that Gonzales was attempting to help Lopez get away with his crime, including evidence of a restraining order sought by Ms. Gonzales over two weeks after the incident. There were at least three prior instances where Mr. Lopez had assaulted Ms. Gonzales. Amongst those prior events was a 2007 incident where police responded to reports of “screaming and choking” coming from the couple’s apartment, where a distraught Ms. Gonzales, then pregnant, was found amongst broken and disordered items in their apartment with various injuries, including scratches, bruising and a cut to her hand. Ms. Gonzales told police that she had simply knocked over a vase, but officers reported that Gonzales kept nervously looking over her shoulder in the direction of Mr. Lopez.
“It is a tragic reality of many domestic violence cases that the victim will report an assault then, because of self-blame, humiliation or coercion, will attempt to cover up the crime, only to be assaulted again,” reports Couzens. “Fortunately,” continued Couzens, “our system allows a jury to hear both explanations and decide which one they believe.” In this case, however, Ms. Gonzales took the additional step of locating one of the jurors on MySpace, prior to the end of the case, and pleading with the juror to acquit Mr. Lopez. The court excused that juror and allowed the case to continue to jury deliberations, during which the jury convicted Lopez of felony domestic violence. Based on the subsequent investigation, the District Attorney’s Office will be filing criminal charges against Angela Gonzales for jury tampering. “It is regrettable that a victim of a crime must be charged with a crime herself,” said District Attorney Jeff Reisig, “but communicating with an empanelled jury risks the integrity of the justice system and cannot be allowed.” For more information, contact the District Attorney’s office at (530) 666-8356.
Here’s what you read in the Davis Enterprise under the byline, “Enterprise Staff.”
“The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office announced Wednesday the conviction of a Woodland man for battering his child’s mother – a woman who now faces jury tampering charges after allegedly contacting a juror on MySpace, a social networking Web site.
Miguel Dagoberto Lopez was found guilty Friday of felony domestic violence in connection with the February 2009 beating, during which Lopez struck the woman in the face and head repeatedly while she held the couple’s 16-month-old child. The dispute was over money for cigarettes, Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens said.
During the trial, victim Angela Gonzales retracted the allegations, saying she lied about the assault because she was angry with Lopez, Couzens said. She also testified that the swelling and bruising injuries she suffered were caused by vomiting due to migraine headaches.
However, Couzens introduced evidence of prior assaults by Lopez against Gonzales, including a 2007 incident during which police responded to reports of ‘screaming and choking’ coming from the couple’s apartment. A pregnant and visibly injured Gonzales reportedly told the officers that she had knocked over a vase.
During the three-day trial, Gonzales allegedly contacted a juror in the case via MySpace and pleaded with her to acquit Lopez. The juror was excused, and Couzens said the DA’s office plans to file jury tampering charges against Gonzales.
‘It is a tragic reality of many domestic violence cases that the victim will report an assault then, because of self-blame, humiliation or coercion, will attempt to cover up the crime, only to be assaulted again,’ Couzens said in a news release. ‘Fortunately, our system allows a jury to hear both explanations and decide which one they believe.'”
Notice that we do not get the other side of the story. They reformat the story to fit their format, but the District Attorney’s office gets to shape the news.
Some may wonder at this point, what’s the big deal? Well for the coverage of this case, perhaps there is no big deal. Or perhaps there is.
The first problem is obvious to everyone, that is that the news is coming directly from the District Attorney’s office. On the other hand it can be argued that in this case, there was a finding of fact that supported the District Attorney’s office–at least in part with the jury verdict. It is also a fact that the DA’s office is now alleging jury tampering and filing or planning to file charges.
As Chomsky argues in his book, one of the biggest biases is not always the bias of commission but that of omission. We only get the stories that the District Attorney’s office deems worthy of news attention. That means we do not get stories about acquittals. That means we do not get stories about wrongful prosecution. In short, we get very one-sided stories from the District Attorney’s office.
This is not of course a charge against the District Attorney. We expect them to send our selective press releases. However, the way the system works is that the local newspapers do not have large staffs to follow all of the court cases. So unless the case is high profile and has received large amounts of attention, the Enterprise, Daily Democrat, and others are not going to follow these cases. The result is that we only find out about two types of cases–one, the cases that are high profile and two, the cases where the District Attorney’s office sends out a press release to tell us about the bad person they put away in jail.
It is a system that serves those in power very well and those who believe the system is in need of reform not so well. The public gets the read the good things its government is doing and the newspapers rarely have the time or resources to look into the not so good things. Unless someone like the Dev’s bring it to the attention of the media, their side of the story rarely gets reported and even when it does, it is an afterthought and never followed through on.
Project Censored used to have a project that every year they would highlight the top stories that were not covered by the media. Then they amended it to the top stories that were under-reported by the media as the advent of the internet and alternative media rose and access to news stories previously underreported rose with it.
Along the same lines, researchers in the effects of media coverage showed through experiments that exposure to the news coverage does not generally impact what people think. People bring into the receipt of information heavy and strong existing beliefs about the world–whether liberal, conservative, or moderate–people do not change their views on an issue based on coverage. However, what these researchers did find was that the media has a very strong ability to impact what people think about. So the topics that they choose to cover are weighed more heavily and more important than topics that are not covered as much or as frequently.
Researchers call this agenda setting and that remains the strongest impact of media cover–the ability to determine what is and what is not important in people’s minds. What we see as we look at look news coverage here is the strong ability of local government agencies to set the agenda by controlling to a large but subconscious degree the local media’s access to information.
This is not necessarily active control in that a news agency could go and seek out other stories, but rather it simply takes advantage of the structure of how news is reported.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Let’s recap: you’re using a press release from the DA about a case of domestic abuse, where the facts are apparently *not* in dispute, which was simply edited for space by the Enterprise, and which contains all the salient facts, as an example of ‘agenda setting’? Ok then.
Yes let’s recap shall we:
1. This is one example of many
2. The facts are not in dispute? Based on what?
3. Did the Enterprise attempt to check facts?
4. Did the Enterprise attempt to get the other side of the story?
5. Did the Enterprise attempt to report on other cases that the DA’s office did not send in a press release to them?
I have always said that most conservatives who bitterly complain about media bias plainly want more bias, not less. It’s hard to listen to more than 10 minutes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly without realizing it.
It’s sad to see the same syndrome on the left.
Studies have also shown that when an openly partisan news source opens up to answer the “mainstream” with “the other side”, it polarizes the news and makes both sides more biased. Having staked its ground among Republicans, Fox pushes its competitors to a bias in favor of Democrats. Again, it would be sad to see the same phenomenon in Davis.
One particularly bad outcome is when supposedly fire-and-ice alternatives settle on the same side of a story, and leave people thinking that they have heard “both” sides. For instance, both Fox and CNN make heavy use of NASA press releases, and they have generally positive coverage of the International Space Station. In reality, the ISS is the worst white elephant ever in the history of science laboratories. The scientific community never wanted it and most scientists would be relieved to see it go. Again, it’s sad to see it in Davis, but at the moment I won’t enumerate examples.
The real way to overcome bias is with a system that lets everyone speak, but rewards more attention to consensus than to contention.
Great Piece. The use of Misinformation, either purposeful or due to laziness is a danger to readers everywhere. When readers entrusts objectivity to news services and instead get slanted reports–we have a problem.
A question we should all be asking ourselves is this; why is the D.A office getting that glorious “benefit of the doubt” while any other person or group gets journalistic scrutiny? Why can’t an accused criminal get his press released published? (example-to prove a point)
My concern w the DA’s press release is that the DA is essentially trying and convicting someone in the press – something the DA should be above doing. In point of fact, Gonzalez had not even been charged, and yet the DA is reporting to the people she is guilty of jury tampering. Now why did the DA feel the need to do such a stupid and unacceptable thing? Does he really think he is bolstering his image? I think not.
I guess that’s where I differ, I expect the DA to do that, that’s part of public relations. Where I have more of a problem is the uncritical printing by the local paper. And again, I could go back and do this ten times over the last month with the DA’s office, and I could do it with UCD press releases, county press releases. I’m not sure the city and school district send out releases like this, but they are obviously missing the boat if they don’t.
Would the school district send out cloying press releases in defense of an expensive project, such as for instance a football stadium? It’s a head scratcher.
So Greenwald objects to the wording of the press release and the Enterprise staff’s rewrite of the press release. Why doesn’t he go out and do his own reporting if he objects so strenuously to the wording of press release and Enterprise staff rewrite? It’s easy to be an armchair quarterback. Much more challenging to do your own interviewing, research and reporting.
“Why doesn’t he go out and do his own reporting if he objects so strenuously to the wording of press release and Enterprise staff rewrite?”
We do all the time.
The DA’s office sent out a press release following the Dev sentencing on August 7. The Davis Enterprise and Daily Democrat picked it up. The Vanguard was the only media in that room that day and we wrote our own story, actually my intern, Royston Sim did.
Click here for Vanguard story ([url]http://www.davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2939:dev-sentenced-to-378-years-in-prison&catid=74:law-enforcement&Itemid=100[/url])
Just as a reminder: You are using this “news” blog to champion the Wildhorse Ranch development.
[quote]So unless the case is high profile and has received large amounts of attention, the Enterprise, Daily Democrat, and others are not going to follow these cases. The result is that we only find out about two types of cases–one, the cases that are high profile and two, the cases where the District Attorney’s office sends out a press release to tell us about the bad person they put away in jail.[/quote]I think David’s larger point is valid — that many news reports are simply a regurgitation of the official line. However, keep in mind that local papers like The Enterprise and the Daily Democrat have very limited resources. They cannot afford enough personnel to investigate all sides of stories of this nature. At the very best, they make it clear to readers that the story they are reading is taken from a press release* from the DA or from whomever it originated.
A counterbalance, though, exists and is used by local papers when appropriate. If a story (such as the example David uses here) fails to provide the point of view of the other side, a spokesman for that side can either contact the paper and tell them his side and it will often result in a second story; or that spokesman can pen a letter to the editor explaining his side and that will always be published. (If it is too long for the letters, The Enterprise will often make space for it to be run as an op/ed, as happened when David felt Bob Dunning misrepresented him in a column about a Vanguard flier.)
* I should add that I have directly told the editor of The Enterprise (Debbie Davis, who edits my column) that some of their stories taken from press releases are bad journalism, because they often include a biased presentation in a “news” story. She has, at times, nodded in agreement; but it’s just impossible not to make some mistakes along those lines when you have very limited resources to make sure you get things right all the time.
Taking press releases essentially at face value is yet another consequence of the decline of print journalism staffing. I recall issuing press releases that were invariably followed-up by a phone call or visit by a beat reporter from the Enterprise. The reporter would take the release as a base-point and then ask additional and expansive questions beyond the content of the release.
If the press release was later transformed into a print article, portions were quoted directly from the release, and the writer would also interject additional views and analysis, including opposing views when they existed. In other words, balanced journalism.
No more. Virtually every day you read of additional cutbacks in newspaper staffing and printing cycles. I’ve said it before; newspapers are on life support and will largely disappear in the next decade. There are many sad connotations with the prediction, but it will happen nonetheless.
I agree with both Rich and Phil here that staffing is a concern. I had a discussion with a couple of editors and reporters before doing this story so that I knew their perspective. Staffing is a concern and that concern will only get larger as time goes on.
“the left do not have their own FOX Noise to response”
They do indeed. They are called CNN, MSNBC, etc.
“I have always said that most conservatives who bitterly complain about media bias plainly want more bias, not less. It’s hard to listen to more than 10 minutes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly without realizing it.”
Greg Kuperberg mistakes commentary for news. A common mistake, as the distinction has been blurred to extinction by ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. See the hagiographic treatments of Edward Kennedy, the Chappaquiddick murderer for an example.
The inability of the left (and I count myself as a progressive) to see the obvious biases
of the media is hard to understand.
It is well known that if you write a story and include a picture there is a very good chance that it will appear in the paper. Parents do this when their children do something of significance, non-profits do this to publicize events and projects, sports teams do this, dance companies, drama groups, political campaigns, City governments, UCD …and on and on.
Why pick on just the DA’s Office?
Question:
“Why pick on just the DA’s Office?”
Answer:
He didn’t.
“I expect the DA to do that, that’s part of public relations. Where I have more of a problem is the uncritical printing by the local paper. And again, I could go back and do this ten times over the last month with the DA’s office, and I could do it with UCD press releases, county press releases.”
Along similar lines, NY Times article today:
Cuts in newspaper staffs reduce efforts for public access to courtrooms
Observers worry that cuts in newspaper legal budgets will mean fewer challenges to efforts to keep court proceedings secret…
The New York Times
September 1, 2009
By Adam Liptak
LINK ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/us/01bar.html[/url])
Bait And Switch?
DPD, I would have said, with chagrin, “I stand corrected,” re: my comment, “why doesn’t Greenwald go out and do his own reporting…”
For you responded that, in effect, you did:
“The Vanguard was the only media in that room that day and we wrote our own story, actually my intern, Royston Sim did.”
So, eager to see your, or Royston’s, version of the events related by the DA’s press release writer and the Davis Enterprise editors, I clicked on the hyperlink to the Vanguard story you embedded in your reply.
Click here for Vanguard story
I clicked and came upon this headline, which seemed to have to do with Miguel Dagoberto Lopez and his family’s plight due to his beating his wife:
Family Claims Miscarriage of Justice and Vows to Fight On
By Royston Sim –
But then my hopes of reading the Vanguard version were dashed. I was disappointed by a classic bait-and-switch:
For on the page you linked to, that’s all there was about the felony domestic violence case. Just the headline.
The story below the headline is about a guy named Dev who got sentenced to 378 years in the slammer for a different felony altogether.
What’s the rest of the story, DPD?
Well Brian that’s what we’re trying to find out. We’ll see if we can pull together a full story on it.
My Concern: “My concern w the DA’s press release is that the DA is essentially trying and convicting someone in the press – something the DA should be above doing. In point of fact, Gonzalez had not even been charged, and yet the DA is reporting to the people she is guilty of jury tampering. Now why did the DA feel the need to do such a stupid and unacceptable thing? Does he really think he is bolstering his image? I think not.”
David M. Greenwald: “I guess that’s where I differ, I expect the DA to do that, that’s part of public relations. Where I have more of a problem is the uncritical printing by the local paper. And again, I could go back and do this ten times over the last month with the DA’s office, and I could do it with UCD press releases, county press releases. I’m not sure the city and school district send out releases like this, but they are obviously missing the boat if they don’t.”
I’m surprised it doesn’t bother you the DA is convicting someone in the newspaper before they are even charged w the crime! This was totally inappropriate on the DA’s part from an ethical standpoint. The DA could brag about the conviction of the abuser, but should have kept his mouth shut about the victim.
I wouldn’t say it doesn’t bother me so much as I expect it. Personally I think it’s a huge mistake to make the DA an elected official because it politicizes his position. As much as it is a political position, I expect that kind of thing. The problem is that we do not have a counterbalance and the media needs to play that role but can’t because they lack the resources or won’t.
have always said that most conservatives who bitterly complain about media bias plainly want more bias, not less. It’s hard to listen to more than 10 minutes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly without realizing it
Interesting facts related to the concern over national media bias:
Reporters registered Democrat: 36% in 1971, 68% now
Reporters registered Republican: 42% in 1971 to 9% now
Add to this profound change: the infusion of opinion in article/piece selection, content and placement; the loss of reporting talent/resources used for real fact gathering and in-depth analysis; and the regurgitation of news, and we have more a political marketing engine and less a source of fact and objective analysis.
Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are relatively new media. They have grown in popularity specifically because most of the old media stopped caring about the more conservative demographic. The collective worldview of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NBC, SFC, NYT, etc., is very clearly left (unless you are blinded by your own left-bias-denial bias) and quite unsatisfying to consumers holding a more right-leaning worldview, and also unsatisfying to those desiring more point-counterpoint balance that used to be a standard hallmark of good reporting.
Jeff: I have been around newsrooms, pressrooms, and reporters enough to believe that you can throw out those numbers, that’s really not what is driving media coverage. The biggest key is going to be access to information. They can’t tell the story of someone not talking to them. Easiest place to get information is the government. In 2002 leading up to the War in Iraq, their coverage erred on the side of WMDs because they were getting their info from the government and their leaks from government. That played a key role in the lead up to the war. That was because of partisan bias, it was because of the access to information. Reporters are looking for a story and stories can be difficult to get, the easier you make for them to write it, the more likely you can shape it.
Another factor people may not consider. I was in the press room at the Capitol in February when the budget was coming down. Long days, late nights. It was a holiday weekend, people away from their families. There was clear bias in that room towards a budget agreement–they didn’t care what it was as long as it was there.
[i]Reporters registered Democrat: 36% in 1971, 68% now
Reporters registered Republican: 42% in 1971 to 9% now[/i]
Since you didn’t provide a reference, I double-checked this with Google. As far as I can tell, this is a comparison of fresh oranges to dried apples. The 1971 figures are from a survey by the Freedom Forum ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/18/us/increasingly-reporters-say-they-re-democrats.html[/url]) that was repeated in 1983 and in 1992. This was a survey of what the journalists called themselves, not how they registered. In 1992, the Freedom Forum survey reported 44% Democrat and 16% Republican.
As for 68% and the 9%, I don’t know who did the survey, who they asked, what the question was, or what “now” means.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that the numbers were “correct”, whatever that means. If so, there is an even bigger bombshell for us to contend with, namely the incredible bias among establishment scientists on the question of Darwin’s theory of evolution. According to Gallup polls ([url]http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm[/url]), 44% of adults nationwide think that God created human beings in roughly their present form within the last 10,000 years. As far as I know, not one, not even one, member of the National Academy of Scientists agrees with them. With such a crushing bias, it’s no wonder that the teachings of these elites is less and less satisfying to customers.
All of this was on my mind when I took an astronomy course in college. The professor claimed that the Pinwheel Galaxy is 27 million light years away. I wanted to raise my hand and say, “In your opinion! Other people say that the light went much faster and got tired. Why don’t you give both sides of the debate?” But, not trusting to intellectual diversity in academia, I expected to be shunned by my classmates and held in suspicion by the instructor. So I said nothing.
Certainly in that class, I really felt that my tuition was a ripoff. If there is one thing that universities need to learn from the business community, it’s that the customer is always right.
Jeff: I have been around newsrooms, pressrooms, and reporters enough to believe that you can throw out those numbers, that’s really not what is driving media coverage.
David: I don’t think it is driving media coverage, but there is no way you or anyone else can deny the ideological tilt of the main “old” media over the last 30-40 years. It correlates with the statistics for journalists’ party affiliation. There is no question that other events, factors, and common social and cultural perspectives, etc. can and do influence group-think, but these days of ideological polarization are indicative of that specific internal noise that must cloud the minds, voices and pens of those entrusted to deliver the “news”.
I have developed a theory of subconscious tribalism existing in our dinosaur brains as a need. Red and blue may be our new civil rights challenge. If we conquer that like we have other undesirable types of bias, then we will need to find something else potentially more damaging to contradict and challenge each other. This was one of the big debates during the constitutional convention… the tribalism of states destroying the union versus the view that it was beneficial to prevent the rise of a single dominating governing power. So, I support having lots of red versus blue conflict and debate… hopefully move civil than not. What worries me is the single dominating power of the media controlling that debate in any way, shape or form. The pen IS mightier than the sword, and so we should demand it is wielded with the utmost care and ethical/professional discretion. But, it takes a large dose of introspection to rat out your own internal bias… given that we are the most narcissistic generation consuming more pills and therapy than ever, I have little faith that enough can and will do so. Hence the need to be informed as consumers of news that much of it is hopelessly biased.
As for 68% and the 9%, I don’t know who did the survey, who they asked, what the question was, or what “now” means.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/18/us/increasingly-reporters-say-they-re-democrats.html
Certainly in that class, I really felt that my tuition was a ripoff. If there is one thing that universities need to learn from the business community, it’s that the customer is always right.
I agree 200%. The other 100% applies to most public-sector “businesses” where the service provider sees the service requestor less as a customer and more as an impediment to a less challenging work day.
They may be Democrats, but that doesn’t mean they are ideologues and driven by those kinds of considerations. I’ve been in so many different parts of the political system from the government to political campaigns and now on the other side as a reporter, I just don’t see it. I think there is a point to be made for unconscious bias but that only goes so far, you still have to get a story which is not the easiest thing to do.
When I was in graduate school, I was interested in media coverage and I never saw a really good study that was able to measure ideological tilt of the media. There were some attempts at content analysis which were pretty poor and subjective. There were some attempts using proxy measures, a study from UCLA from about five years ago from Groseclose comes to mind, but that assumes a lot from proximal measures. I’ve not seen anything credible that demonstrates this statement from you, “there is no way you or anyone else can deny the ideological tilt of the main “old” media over the last 30-40 years” using objective empirical measures.
Greg, The NYT article linked above was published in 1992 and then we had 44% that identified themselves as Dems and 16% that identified themselves as Reps. I am looking for the second reference from a survey that was done in 2008. I didn’t save the link as a favorite as I usually do, so now I have to re-reseach.
For now just use the 1992 numbers and the point is still valid.
[i]http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/18/us/increasingly-reporters-say-they-re-democrats.html[/i]
Yes, that’s the same article that I already found and cited. But 1992 isn’t “now” and nothing in the article says 68% or 9%.
[i]I agree 200%.[/i]
Great, but it doesn’t fit what you’re talking about. Advertisers, not readers, are the main business customers of newspapers. They are the ones who no longer use the product, because they have alternatives such as Craigslist. If readers had to pay, then the New York Times in particular would be doing better than ever. It has 10 times many readers now as it did when it was flush.
It doesn’t fit universities either. It’s fine if students decide how well they were served as customers, but they should first learn the material. Instructors aren’t paid to just tell students that they’re right.
[i]I agree 200%.[/i]
Great, but it doesn’t fit what you’re talking about. Advertisers, not readers, are the main business customers of newspapers. They are the ones who no longer use the product, because they have alternatives such as Craigslist. If readers had to pay, then the New York Times in particular would be doing better than ever. It has 10 times many readers now as it did when it was flush.
It doesn’t fit universities either. It’s fine if students decide how well they were served as customers, but they should first learn the material. Instructors aren’t paid to just tell students that they’re right.
[i]There were some attempts using proxy measures, a study from UCLA from about five years ago from Groseclose comes to mind, but that assumes a lot from proximal measures.[/i]
Groseclose read from his data that the media is more liberal than Congress. He took this to mean that the media has a liberal bias. Why he didn’t consider that Congress might have a conservative bias is a mystery. Since when was Congress loyal to the truth?
Greg: And the other part was the assumption that use of think tanks as references was an indicator of ideology both of congress and of newspapers.
[i]Greg: And the other part was the assumption that use of think tanks as references was an indicator of ideology both of congress and of newspapers.[/i]
But that might be fair, given that many think tanks really are highly ideological. Even when the “center” is a washed-out pastel, it could still be okay to match it to a mixture of primary colors. Maybe not perfect, but serviceable.
As far as I’m concerned, the real brain malfunction is the idea that the truth is defined by the customer, the student, the voter, or Congress, or any other such human reference point. It’s ironic that this intellectual relativism can come from conservatives who also say that they believe in plain truth, and who accuse teachers of saying that there are no wrong answers. It has been said about “Conservapedia” that it lays claim to a separate truth.
Anyway, my comment about about your post, David, is that we shouldn’t always want “both sides” of the story. Sometimes one side is already fair and the other side is a raft of distortions.
[quote]Sometimes one side is already fair and the other side is a raft of distortions. [/quote]Yes, but at times a raft of distortions can be exhilarating. [img]http://www.inceptmarine.com/images/w46-whitewater-rafting-action-300.jpg[/img]
Hey Dave,
I just checked your link you said goes to the story you said you wrote about the domestic violence felony–since you were the only media rep in the DA’s news conference. And it still goes to a completely different story.
If you say you’re gonna do something, like write a story, then just do it and don’t put up dead end links to a story you said you wrote. It could be a good story because, looking at the published accounts, nobody has really probingly talked to the wife. It’s a classic, which is reported so much in the media, the woman who covers up for an abusive husband. If you could find out a little bit about her psychology in that, it would be a real public service.
I’ll check the link when I get back to a computer. For now, I can tell you that I met with the wife and multiple family members back in early July. I found her very believable, but I’m not going to base a story on what she told me. Certainly there is a history of things as you say, but neither of us have any way of knowing if that’s what has occurred here. The evidence will either come forth or it won’t.
That’s a reporter’s job, to test the “believability” of a source against other sources and independent research. In this case trial transcripts for starters.
It is great that you took the time to speak with Angela Gonzalez in early July. Was she then believable about the gist of the original complaint, that she was beaten because she didn’t have money for cigarettes? Of course at that time she hadn’t yet had a chance to tamper with the jury via MySpace had she?
See, that’s what I’m talking about, the discrepancy in her behavior over time. Exploring that evolving mindset would be an eye-opener for a lot of women in similar situations. Similar to what back in the 1970s was called the “Stockholm Syndrome” (which apparently distorted Patty Hearst’s perceptions to an amazing degree) wherein hostages begin to identify with their captors.
I apologize, I thought you were asking about a different case. I have never covered the MySpace case.
You wrote in reference to the press release/Enterprise article:
“Notice that we do not get the other side of the story. They reformat the story to fit their format, but the District Attorney’s office gets to shape the news.”
I was suggesting ways in which you could go out and find what the other side of the story was, by investigating.
If you had wanted to show how we only get one side of the story that sometimes the criminal justice systems are not perfect that “As Chomsky argues in his book, one of the biggest biases is not always the bias of commission but that of omission. We only get the stories that the District Attorney’s office deems worthy of news attention. That means we do not get stories about acquittals. That means we do not get stories about wrongful prosecution. In short, we get very one-sided stories from the District Attorney’s office.”
You weren’t clear on how you were using the Lopez case as an example of one-sided storytelling
A rational, well-informed skepticism towards those who calibrate and promulgate information and/or news is a prerequisite for distilling fact from fiction.
At what precise moment in our nation’s history when news + government sponsored agencies enter the truth-telling business?
A nation dominated by political correctness demonstrates no vested interest or commitment to truth.
A left, right, center characterization of politics and/or news is pure ideological bootlegging.
Think and converse in principle. The rest is allegory.