From a piece written in 2004:
Liberal Bias in the Wording of a News Article
Liberal bias takes many forms. When the alleged bias is the omission or distortion of critical facts, demonstrating the bias is a more straightforward project. But there is a more subtle and far more pervasive bias that is harder to explain to skeptics: a bias based on the wording of a piece. This sort of bias manifests itself in the tone, the word usage, and the perspective of a piece. I am going to attempt to explain this sort of bias today, by showing some of the devices used.
Today the Washington Post prints one of those articles that drive conservatives like me crazy. The article, a front-page news analysis titled Kerry Put On Defensive About Iraq, just drips with sympathy for Kerry. But I don’t find any clear misstatements of fact in the piece. The bias is in the way it’s worded, starting with the very first paragraph:Over the past week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrown Sen. John F. Kerry on the defensive with a daily assault designed to tarnish his credentials as a possible commander in chief. But the orchestrated attacks also revealed the president’s vulnerabilities on the issue that continues to shape the presidential campaign as much as any other.
I chuckled when I read the part about the “orchestrated attacks.” It reminded me of the survey that one web site did of all the times Dan Rather had used the phrase “carefully orchestrated leak.” You will not be surprised to learn that Rather always used the phrase to refer to alleged leaks by Republicans. Republicans are apparently the masters of “orchestration,” whether you’re talking leaks or attacks.
You see, whenever one candidate criticizes another, there are two ways to characterize what’s happening. If you think the criticism may be valid, you will refer to the criticism passively, and discuss the “mounting criticism” of the candidate being criticized. But if you don’t like the criticism, then you will refer to the criticism as an “attack.” You will consistently phrase the description of the criticism in the active voice, as in: “Cheney attacked Kerry over the issue of . . .” Rather than saying that the parties voicing the criticism have “pointed out” their opponent’s misstatements, you will say they “seized on” those misstatements.
This is the approach taken by this piece, beginning with its title: “Kerry Put On Defensive About Iraq” (rather than simply: “Kerry On Defensive About Iraq.”) It is replete with phrases accusing Bush and Cheney of attacking Kerry. Here are a few examples:President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrown Sen. John F. Kerry on the defensive with a daily assault designed to tarnish his credentials . . .
. . . .
The attacks also underscore the urgency within Bush’s campaign to deny Kerry a sustained post-convention bounce.
. . . .
Given that reality, Bush has gone on the offensive against Kerry.
. . . .
Bush and Cheney have seized on Kerry’s comment that he would vote again to give Bush authority to go to war, his claim that he would try to reduce troop strength significantly during his first six months in office and his comment about waging a more sensitive war on terrorism.
The GOP attacks followed a familiar pattern. Bush struck first . . . [t]hen Cheney moved in with tougher language designed to raise questions about Kerry’s reliability. Bush and Cheney also selectively interpreted Kerry’s words to cast them in the worst possible light.
. . . .
Cheney seized on a comment Kerry had made to the Unity convention of minority journalists about how he would differ from Bush on terrorism.
. . . .
Cheney fired back that sensitivity never won a war.
. . . .
Bush has also put Kerry on the defensive over a comment the Democrat made about troop levels in Iraq.
It’s hard to read the piece without coming to the conclusion that Bush and Cheney are just a pair of bullies. But what are they doing? Simply engaging in partisan rhetoric characteristic of any presidential campaign — rhetoric that Kerry engages in as well. Yet Kerry and his advisers are never described as “attacking” the Administration.
Another interesting thing about this news analysis is that it is told from the point of view of the Kerry campaign. In narrative fiction writing, this form of narrative viewpoint is known as a “limited omniscient” or “third person restricted” viewpoint:
To foster greater emotional involvement by the reader, the third person perspective can be limited to just one character. The narrator is still an objective observer, but one who comments on the thoughts and actions that are available only to the chosen character.
This is the way the news analysis is written. We see the thoughts of the Kerry advisers as though we can see into their minds: “Kerry advisers see the criticisms as both wrong and distorted.” But the thoughts of the Bush campaign are a matter of speculation — the writer seemingly has to guess what Bush and his advisers are thinking: “Bush’s goal appears aimed at shifting the focus of the debate from what has happened in Iraq to who can best be trusted to keep the country safe in the future. . . ”
What difference does it make to tell a story from the perspective of only one party? Roger Ebert once explained how, by making Norman Bates the protagonist of the horror film “Psycho,” Alfred Hitchcock was able to get the audience to see things from Bates’s point of view — to the point where, at times, we are actually rooting for the killer to get away with his crime:
The sequence ends with the masterful shot of Bates pushing Marion’s car (containing her body and the cash) into a swamp. The car sinks, then pauses. Norman watches intently. The car finally disappears under the surface.
Analyzing our feelings, we realize we wanted that car to sink, as much as Norman did.
The point: we are more likely to identify with, and sympathize with, the party whose point of view is given prominence.
It would be possible to tell the exact same story that is told in the Post news analysis, but put a completely different spin on the facts, by simply changing the tone, the facts that are highlighted, and the point of view that is emphasized. To demonstrate this, in the extended entry, I have placed the original story in the left-hand column, and have placed in the right-hand column a rewritten version of the story — one that uses the techniques I have just described, to spin the analysis to favor Bush. I think you’ll find that the rewritten version conveys a very different overall impression.
Patterico then demonstrates how the article could have been written with a conservative, pro-Bush spin using exactly the same facts.
The demonstration is eye-opening.
Read the whole thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment