Of Straw Men and Shoddy Journalism
By Thomas Lindaman (03/26/06)
When I was in journalism school, one thing that got beat into me by my professors was the importance of balance and objectivity. Opinion was great for the opinion page, but for the front page, you had to inform using information from as many sides as you could get. I used to read Associated Press copy and marvel at just how balanced the coverage was for the most part.
Now, the Associated Press is embroiled in a scandal regarding a piece written by one of its reporters that didn’t keep my professors’ admonitions in mind. Jennifer Loven penned an article about President George W. Bush and how he tends to use what was termed “straw man arguments” to make his position seem to be the better one. Loven noted that the President uses such phrases as “some say” or “some believe” to set up his argument and appear to be a champion of the correct side of the argument.
Loven wrote, “The device [the use of “some say” and “some believe”] usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.” She added, “he [Bush] typically then says he ‘strongly disagrees’ --- conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.” She also provided quotes from “experts in political speech” who supported her position.
Granted, this is a legitimate story and some solid analysis. But there is a tiny problem. Loven’s piece wasn’t labeled as news analysis or opinion. It was run with no designation whatsoever. Not to mention, the sources used in her story did not include Republicans or White House officials, nor did the story suggest that they were even contacted for comment.
Once the firestorm over the “straw man” piece started brewing, the AP fell in line behind Loven. Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll defended the piece as “a good way to explain to readers what rhetorical devices people, in this case the president, use to make their point.” AP spokesman Jack Stokes wrote in a statement, “Jennifer Loven’s story was one of an ongoing series of fact-checking stories that dig beyond the rhetoric. Editors tell us they want more of these stories.”
So, what’s the big deal? It’s a matter of perspective, dear readers. Even in today’s environment where we know that the media don’t always tell us the truth, there is still a reasonable expectation that reporters are telling us the truth. This unspoken agreement is broken when opinions slip into news reports because it takes the reporting from a brief factual recount of a particular event into an editorial.
A big red flag on this entire situation is the fact that Loven doesn’t appear to have done anything more than a piece of one-sided journalism designed not to inform, but to enflame. Even though one of the “experts” Loven cites in her piece says in effect all politicians do what Bush does, it doesn’t excuse the shoddy work done, both by Loven and by the AP. There had to be an editor somewhere at the AP who knew what the story was about or at the very least had to have seen the copy before it went to print. Responsible journalism requires that someone in a position to address the one-sided nature of Loven’s piece either tell her to rewrite the piece with more balance or provide at least some statement designating the piece as opinion or news analysis. This is where the AP dropped the ball and continues to drop the ball by defending the decision to run the piece as is.
Conservatives and Republicans point to situations like this as proof of media bias, and I can’t say that I disagree with their position on this. Media folks and their defenders write off such accusations as everything from conspiracy theories to Republicans and conservatives being sore that their ox got gored. I’m not sure this is a case of media bias so much as it is proof that modern journalism needs to learn basic journalistic ethics.
Yes, I understand the modern media line that no one can be completely objective because every reporter brings his or her life experience into the situation, but this is no excuse not to try to give balance in a news story. I’ve been on both sides of the journalist/editorial relationship and I know what is expected of me in that dichotomy. When I’m a reporter, I’m expected to be factual and objective. When I’m a columnist, I’m expected to be factual, but give an opinion. It’s that simple.
And if someone like me can get it, the Associated Press sure as heck can.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Thomas Lindaman
