Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

October 25, 2005

Conspicuous Media Bias

The Washington Post has an article today entitled "Husband Conspicuous in Leak Case." It seems that "suddenly" Joe Wilson is being looked at as playing a part in the releasing of his wife's name. You know who she is...Valerie Plame.

Only now is Wilson being considered conspicuous? He's done his darndest for the last two years to stay conspicuous, what with his gadding about with celebrities, running the news magazine show gamut, and writing a book.

Here's what jumps out at me in this article (emphases mine):

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page, defending the administration, wrote yesterday that, "Mr. Wilson became an antiwar celebrity who joined the Kerry for president campaign." Discussing his trip to Niger, the Journal judged: "Mr. Wilson's original claims about what he found on a CIA trip to Africa, what he told the CIA about it, and even why he was sent on the mission have since been discredited."

Now read this:

Wilson's defenders say he is a truth-teller who has been unfairly attacked. "[T]he White House responded to Ambassador Wilson in the worst possible way," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said at a Democratic gathering in July. "They did not present substantive evidence to justify the uranium claim. . . . Instead, it appears that the president's advisers launched a smear campaign, and Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, became collateral damage."

See the difference? Both paragraphs are factual, but look at how the facts are presented. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is conservative, true. The point of editorials is indeed to toss out opinions. It's where opinions belong in a newspaper. But how would the Post like being characterized as having a "liberal" editorial page? Notice, too, how they use the word "judge" in that phrase, and then look at the response by Senator Waxman. He only "said" that Wilson was the victim of a smear campaign, while the Journal "judged" Wilson's original claims about his trip to Africa.

Is this nitpicking? Some might think so. But how news stories are worded has as much to do with what they say as the facts that are presented. Back in college, I did my senior thesis on this subject, using a former local mayor who was on trial for bribery while he was in office. The local newspaper was very obvious in its support for the mayor by the wording of its articles--especially in descriptions of the mayor and the prosecuting attorney. (I got an A on the paper.)

There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. The human element is nearly impossible to erase. The best way to get around such biases is to present more than one point of view and let the readers/viewers sort through the muck--something many MSM outlets are loathe to do, because they can't admit that such a bias exists. That would be tatamount to admitting they are human and can screw up.

Being toppled from a pedestal...especially a self-constructed one...is a painful process indeed.