Facts or Feelings? News or Views? Will the Reader Win or Lose?
Guy T. Sturino
February 15, 2006
Where you get your news can cause you to reflect, or cause you to react.
Yesterday the Senate voted to uphold a point of order on S852, a bill addressing problems with asbestos litigation. The result of the vote returns the bill to committee for reassessment. A comparison of the reports of two major news sources provides some insight into what readers are up against in their search for understanding.
In the New York Times, a report by Steven Labaton on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, carries the headline “Asbestos Bill is Sidelined by the Senate.” From the Washington Post, the headline of a report by staff writer Shailagh Murry, on the same day reads “Senate Foes Block Proposed Trust Fund for Asbestos Victims.” One headline states a bare fact, the other presents that same fact with an emotional kicker.
The opening paragraphs are also different in the same way. From the Times we are told, “with powerful interests on both sides [the vote] did not break down along party lines.” But, the Post tells us that the vote was “a victory for Democrats and their trial-lawyer allies who waged a relentless campaign to defeat a bill that took five years to negotiate.”
Following the opening paragraphs, both articles provided numerous quotes from both sides and a clear understanding of the issues, what occurred and why. However, the headlines and opening paragraphs provided two completely different windows on the news. The Times window was clear and unobstructed while the Post window had a definite republican red tint. Before presenting the news, the Washington Post article emphasized “a relentless campaign to defeat a bill that took five years to negotiate.” The only purpose for making this statement is to elicit emotional response, and shade the content which follows.
Purely as an aside, who cares how long it takes to build something that doesn’t get the job done? This argument was restated ad nauseam on the floor of the Senate. It’s a bad argument. When a wheel chair is needed, a crutch just won’t work, no matter how long it took to manufacture.
Whn I write I want to elicit emotional response. I want people to see my point of view, so I use adverbs, adjectives and nuance to set the stage for what I want to say. I know that if I can adjust the perspective of the reader, I can change the weight of information to either emphasize or diminish its impact . But, I am not a news reporter, I editorialize. I know it and you know it. You take that into account when reading this article. I don’t call what I do ‘reporting the news’, and neither should anyone else who does what I do.
Therefore, I will end with this thought. Editorial comments are not only a right, but an obligation of all major news sources. After all, who else has access to as much information and the time to read and analyze it? Shading editorials is expected, how could it be otherwise? But, readers beware, the difference between education and indoctrination can be almost indiscernible when presented by a trusted and skillful source. When a major news source shades the news, either red or blue, they do an immense disservice to the journalism profession, and to their readers.
Yesterday the Senate voted to uphold a point of order on S852, a bill addressing problems with asbestos litigation. The result of the vote returns the bill to committee for reassessment. A comparison of the reports of two major news sources provides some insight into what readers are up against in their search for understanding.
In the New York Times, a report by Steven Labaton on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, carries the headline “Asbestos Bill is Sidelined by the Senate.” From the Washington Post, the headline of a report by staff writer Shailagh Murry, on the same day reads “Senate Foes Block Proposed Trust Fund for Asbestos Victims.” One headline states a bare fact, the other presents that same fact with an emotional kicker.
The opening paragraphs are also different in the same way. From the Times we are told, “with powerful interests on both sides [the vote] did not break down along party lines.” But, the Post tells us that the vote was “a victory for Democrats and their trial-lawyer allies who waged a relentless campaign to defeat a bill that took five years to negotiate.”
Following the opening paragraphs, both articles provided numerous quotes from both sides and a clear understanding of the issues, what occurred and why. However, the headlines and opening paragraphs provided two completely different windows on the news. The Times window was clear and unobstructed while the Post window had a definite republican red tint. Before presenting the news, the Washington Post article emphasized “a relentless campaign to defeat a bill that took five years to negotiate.” The only purpose for making this statement is to elicit emotional response, and shade the content which follows.
Purely as an aside, who cares how long it takes to build something that doesn’t get the job done? This argument was restated ad nauseam on the floor of the Senate. It’s a bad argument. When a wheel chair is needed, a crutch just won’t work, no matter how long it took to manufacture.
Whn I write I want to elicit emotional response. I want people to see my point of view, so I use adverbs, adjectives and nuance to set the stage for what I want to say. I know that if I can adjust the perspective of the reader, I can change the weight of information to either emphasize or diminish its impact . But, I am not a news reporter, I editorialize. I know it and you know it. You take that into account when reading this article. I don’t call what I do ‘reporting the news’, and neither should anyone else who does what I do.
Therefore, I will end with this thought. Editorial comments are not only a right, but an obligation of all major news sources. After all, who else has access to as much information and the time to read and analyze it? Shading editorials is expected, how could it be otherwise? But, readers beware, the difference between education and indoctrination can be almost indiscernible when presented by a trusted and skillful source. When a major news source shades the news, either red or blue, they do an immense disservice to the journalism profession, and to their readers.
Print
Email
