September 5, 2004

THE BIASED PRESS DOES KEEP THOSE OMBUDSMEN BUSY:

Is That What He Really Said? (Michael Getler, September 5, 2004, Washington Post)

"Cheney Calls Kerry Unfit," read the big, front-page headline over a story in Thursday's Post about attacks on the Democratic challenger at the Republican convention in speeches by Vice President Cheney and Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia.

"Unfit" is a powerful, personally damning word; it has become even more explosive in the past several weeks because it is in the title of a best-selling book, "Unfit For Command" by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi. The book is the cornerstone of a nationwide effort by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to challenge Sen. John F. Kerry's war record.

The problem is that Cheney never used the word "unfit." Yet the headline can be seen as reinforcing the Swift boat challengers' attack. The headline writer no doubt drew inspiration from the first paragraph of the story by reporter John F. Harris, who wrote that Cheney "reached back decades" into Kerry's life, "arguing in taunting language that the Democratic presidential nominee has demonstrated through his public statements and votes that he is unfit to be commander in chief in an age of terrorism."

You could draw that conclusion from listening to what Cheney did say. But that, in my view and those of some readers, was a poor choice of words and headline. The headline went beyond what Cheney said and then spread the characterization across the front page.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 5, 2004 5:18 PM
Comments

All the focus is always on bias among reporters, but sometimes it's the copy editors (or nowadays, the webmasters) who write the headlines that drive so many people up the wall, even if the story disputes what the headline alleges.

Posted by: John at September 5, 2004 5:43 PM

Press bias isn't a big deal and much of the complaining about it resembles whining IMHO.

In most countries, it is assumed that newspapers and TV are biased. Does anyone expect an anti-Chirac article out of Figaro, or a pro-Chirac article from Le Monde? What is different in the States is that the newspapers and TV news claim to be objective, in a truly obscene insult to our intelligence.

Another change that has occured is cable and the Internet. The Big 3 no longer have a monopoly but instead people have all kinds of news sources. Everybody always knew the big 3 were clones of each other with their anti-labor, anti-patriotic bias. Now you can watch FNC, read Drudge, etc. The ratings reflect this as network news draws flies. Newspaper readership is down but the WSJ is now the #2 paper in the country, and the LA Times has been getting hammered. The market is solving the problem.

Posted by: Bart at September 5, 2004 7:21 PM

" . . even if the story disputes what the headline alleges."

I noticed a couple of days ago that the CNN headline (what appears on the screen to the upper right of the anchor) for the slaughhter in Russia as "Schoolhouse Tragedy." That gives the viewer the impression it might have been a fire or a boiler explosion.

Posted by: George at September 6, 2004 12:04 PM
« THE ENCHANTED KINGDOM | Main | THE COMEBACK KID: »