Steve, of course, is correct about the organizational separation between
editorial and news. The difficulty? Such facts elude most readers, even the
more sophisticated policy wonks. And if only it were as absolute as that.
The lack of real competition in newspapering these days should have shoved
the survivors into a more objective news mode, but it's almost impossible,
because humans and owners and money are running the show - not the reader
seeking news they can trust, opinions they can accept or reject and an
outlet where money has little to do with coverage. Naive.
Still, hefty competition has not served to downplay the perception - and the
reality - of clear bias in both reporting and editorial. But that's OK. When
there's plenty of competition, papers can take on an identity associated
with a political philosophy. The problem comes when they try to hornswaggle
the public into the notion that bias enters not these hallowed news pages.
Historically, as any observer should know, the dailies, in particular, were
organs of political parties pretending to be objective, or of media moguls
manipulating public opinion from the front page back. Citizen Kane (Wm.
Randolph Hearst) was a reality couched in fiction. My great-grandfather, who
owned the St. Paul Pioneer Press for the last third of the 19th Century, was
a devout Republican, and, with no apologies for the slant, all papers then
were promoted as "Republican" or "Democrat" or "Populist." His was
Republican, and he served as one in the State Senate.
Many were named for their politics. Think about the Red Wing Republican. It
lives up to its name.
Most newspapers still do, in fact, blend news coverage with editorial
opinion. Smaller communities betray biases all of the time in news stories,
fearful of angering their advertisers over any story considered truly
probative of, say, a polluting business, or a corrupted elected official.
Any wonder why the cynicism? That's the tradition in journalism; all efforts
to disclaim bias fall on deaf ears. And should.
Oh, you can hear the wails of reporters (including me) going up in protest
when their objectivity is questioned; more often than not, they cover their
subjects well and with as much balance as possible.
But they also try to disown the bias shown by editors on the news side, who
betray themselves in in the news they choose to cover, whom they choose to
assign a story, whose interview is published, how much space to assign a
story and where it's placed.
It is less the subjectivity of media coverage than perpetuating the sham
that all reporting is objective, balanced, blah-blah-blah, but rather must,
in the face of human nature have two biases underlying it: the personal
bias of any writer, and the editorial bias they know they will face when
filing a story. Let's simply get real. Just examine, for instance, the
extraordinary role the St. Paul PP played in the march toward a publicly
funded stadium, once the paper signed onto the notion. The cases are legion.
Andy Driscoll
--
"Whatever keeps you from your work is your work."
Albert Camus
The Driscoll Group/Communications
Writing/Graphics/Strategic Development
835 Linwood Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55105
651-293-9039
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "Steve Brandt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:41:18 -0600
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE newspaper endorsement scorecard
>
> And today's' lesson is? Although this is editorial page data, don't
> assume the Strib is an unbiased, objective newspaper.
> Bob Schoonover
> Afton MN
>
> A more apt lesson would be to not assume that the Strib has an
> unbiased, objective EDITORIAL PAGE. News and editorial are separate
> departments. Labeling the whole paper because of the stance of the
> editorial page is a misreading of how a newspaper functions. It's
> comparable to concluding that because the Supreme Court rules one way,
> the Justice Department and the rest of the federal government must
> feel that way.
>
> Is there liberal bias on the editorial page? Bob's numbers can speak
> for themselves. I do know that the Pioneer's editorial page made some
> conscious choices several years ago to seek conservative-liberal
> balance in its staff. The bulk of the Star Tribune legislative
> endorsements are researched by two retired reporters who have close to
> a half-century's experience between them in covering state government
> and rate as pretty fair observers of both the issues and what it takes
> to ably serve as a legislator. They are Gene Lahammer, formerly of
> the Associated Press, and Betty Wilson, formerly of the Star and the
> Star Tribune.
>
> Steve Brandt
>
>
>
