|
At The New York Times, the Best Editorials Are on the Front
Page
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst
Furthermore, the New York Times news pages don't in anyway take
into account the unprecedented totalitarian-state-like manipulation
of the media that has been undertaken by the Bush administration.
On a daily basis, the New York Times news section tacitly participates
in this propaganda machine, the likes of which that hasn't been around
since Goebbels or the former Soviet Union. -- A
BuzzFlash Editorial (3/4/05)
As I’ve written before, “token
balance” in today’s “news” stories refers to the superficially “balanced”
inclusion of quotations from, or indirect references to, individuals
or groups holding a different perspective from the dominant opinion,
position or argument of the piece. These crumbs tossed to the “other
side” give the appearance of balance-by-representation, but are designed
to be unconvincing or even abhorrent to readers.
When something happens
all the time,
we no longer notice it. |
But what about news stories in which even token balance is absent?
When something happens all the time, we no longer notice it. The
New York Times and other major newspapers present as “news” stories
on their front pages the recitation of (flattering) White House perspectives
on the actions, decisions, and statements of the president and high-ranking
members of the Bush administration. Until recently, I never even questioned
the omission of any reference to critical perspectives and references
in news stories on the issues and events related to this administration’s
objectives.
It was only by accident that I noticed the remarkably uncritical tone
of articles in the Times—a paper which, ever so ironically,
even White
House Press Corps intruder Jeff Gannon notes is the gold standard
from which news departments take their cues
While researching a new article, I flipped between www.nytimes.com,
www.whitehouse.gov and www.presidentialprayerteam.org and
noticed that the home pages of all three websites had one thing in
common: the omission of critical views, questions or concerns in
leading stories about the president and others in his administration.
Naturally, I wouldn’t expect even token balance in the Bush administration’s
own website, nor would I expect it in a “faith-based” proBush site--but
the NYT?
Winning Hearts and Minds on the Front Page
This led me to question my assumptions: Why does the NYT report
on activities and statements of this administration as if it were a
house organ, much like the free “newspapers” at the front doors of for-profit
hospitals that report only the wonderful things that the administration
and medical staff are doing, omitting any reference to patient complaints
or physicians’ concerns?
Has the NYT become the White House newspaper? If not, why does
it serve as a massive press release by reporting administration “news”
like a house organ, omitting serious (or any) reference to persons or
groups who are concerned or disagree with the administration’s latest
statement or action? Is the role of the NYT to serve as a watchdog
for the public interest--which entails critical writing, not flattering
lip sync with the Bush administration? If not, the NYT should
come clean and add a disclaimer at the top of every news article, for
example: “Full Disclosure: This story was written solely from information
provided by the Bush administration, omitting dissenting views or concerns.”
The NYT is assailed for being “liberal,” and I’ve often heard
the confident assertion (by people who’ve never read the Times)
that “The New York Times is run by a bunch of liberal Jews.”
Many rightwing conservatives blame the “Jewish-liberal cabal” at the
Times and in Hollywood for all of America’s ills.
However, those who chastise the NYT for being left-leaning
are in some ways correct: As BuzzFlash
points out, the editorial pages do include a few liberal columnists,
and the “soft” sections of the paper (arts, home living, human-interest
features, etc.) tend to be far more to the left than most US newspapers.
Critics go too far, however, when they lump the pro-Bush administration
news department together with the numerous left-leaning sections of
the paper, sections that make up the bulk but not the international
influence of the NYT.
As Noam Chomsky observes in the DVD,
"Manufactured Consent," the words “All the News That’s
Fit to Print” adorning the top of the Times’ front page should
not be dismissed as merely a slogan, but a “let the buyer beware” disclaimer
that’s seldom noticed or taken seriously. Somebody in the news department
(or higher up) decides what’s fit to publish and what isn’t, based on
personal allegiances, political pressures, advertisers’ preferences,
readers’ reactions, etc. This person isn’t an all-knowing news god,
but a mere mortal like the rest of us: He or she puts trousers on one
leg at the time, as the saying goes.
To be a well-informed citizen, it’s essential to read critically. Make
a habit of asking yourself questions such as the following:
- Why is this particular story published at all? Who stands to benefit
financially or politically when millions of people read this piece
uncritically, assuming that it’s objective, “balanced” news?
- Why now? Was it inspired by recent or future events?
- What do the story’s wording, particularly the title, and the persuasive
“bookend” paragraphs at the beginning and end, reveal about the writer’s
opinions and the news director’s objectives?
- What labels (e.g., positive vs. negative, strong vs. weak, appealing
vs. not) are used to describe positions, “sides,” individuals or groups?
- How does the selection of photos, if any, match or contrast with
the text? Do illustrations and their captions make one person, position
or group look better than the other?
Don't Let Them Fool You: How to Read the Truth
Between the Lines
Following is a chart based on an analysis of many news stories (mostly
front-page pieces) from The New York Times. An
earlier piece illustrated how subtle bias works on the front page.
There are also some specific features of propaganda-supportive "news"
stories that we should consider.
Whenever you wonder whether a news article is balanced or biased, refer
back to this chart to see how the story you’re reading measures up on
each dimension--that is, which "side," person or group does
the news article seem to want readers to identify with or endorse?
| DECISIONS MADE BY JOURNALIST AND/OR
EDITOR |
For POSITIVE PUBLIC OPINION SHAPING:
- Increases readers' approval of an attitude, person, group
or “side”
- Increases belief or liking |
For NEGATIVE PUBLIC OPINION SHAPING:
- Decreases readers' approval of an attitude, person, group
or “side”
- Increases skepticism or dislike |
| Journalist's use of adjectives
and other descriptors of interviewee |
Positive adverbs, adjectives and
labels describing the interviewee |
Negative or neutral adverbs, adjectives
and labels describing the interviewee |
| Space allotted to each interviewee
and his/her views |
More space/word count devoted to
the interviewee and his or her views |
Less space/word count devoted to
the interviewee and his or her views |
| Quotes vs. third-person references
or descriptions |
Direct quotes
(more colorful/interesting) |
Third-person references
(less colorful/interesting) |
| Journalist's selection of photos
to accompany the article |
Sympathetic (positive with strong,
clear message) |
Not sympathetic (negative or neutral;
ambiguous message) |
| Journalist's selection of interviewee
quotes to include in the article |
Many or all quotes selected suggest
positive personal qualities (patriotism, altruism, love, family-oriented,
etc.).
Values reflected by quotes are identical— verbatim phrases
—or similar to values expressed by White House, Pentagon, other
official authorities |
Few or no quotes selected suggest
positive personal qualities
Quotes selected suggest negative or neutral personal qualities.
Values reflected by quotes conflict with values similar to
those espoused by White House, Pentagon, other official authorities
|
| Placement of descriptions, references
or quotes of one “side,” person, or group |
“Bookend Persuasion” Quotations
of, or positive references to, one “side,” person or group at
the beginning and the end of the piece (“primacy” and “recency”
effects) |
“The Muddled Middle” Quotations
of or references to, the “side,” person or group is confined
to the middle paragraphs, where readers tend to skim or skip
|
| Repetition of key words or phrases
used by one “side,” person or group |
Greater repetition of key words
or phrases “ring a bell”—easy to remember; seem familiar and
trustworthy |
Non-repeated phrases don't “ring
a bell”—novel, unfamiliar, require more independent thought;
not familiar |
| Use of “person contraries”: (e.g.,
good/bad, right/wrong, liberal/conservative) persons, groups
or sides. |
Use of person contraries (good
guy/bad guy) simplifies reader's task into “whose side are you
on?”--hence is more personally relevant, memorable and persuasive
|
Few or no person contraries (no
clear-cut good guy/bad guy or us/them motif) deprives readers
of easy us/them choices; is more demanding (and may feel threatening),
hence less memorable and persuasive |
| Use of “issue contraries”: either/or
presentation |
Black-and-white contrasts are simpler
and require only a personal choice between two alternatives—less
challenging, more memorable and more persuasive for average
readers |
Gray-area comparisons lacking clear
good/bad contrasts require careful consideration and independent
thought; are less memorable and persuasive for average readers
|
Start reading the news like a pro, whether you prefer the NYT,
The Wall Street Journal, or your local newspaper. Find the
truth that’s hiding between the lines, then teach your friends to do
the same. Our democracy depends on it.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Dr. Teresa Whitehurst
is a clinical psychologist, author of Jesus
on Parenting: 10 Essential Principles That Will Transform Your Family
(2004) and coauthor of The
Nonviolent Christian Parent (2004). She offers parenting workshops,
holds discussion groups on Nonviolent Christianity, and writes the column,
"Democracy, Faith and Values: Because You Shouldn’t Have to Choose
Just One" as seen on her
website. |
