ECKLEBURG
2004-09-18 - 3:15 p.m.
Okay, here is the actual point that I wanted to make before I felt the need to preface it with the last two surprisingly long entries.
Everybody talks about the “liberal media,” but I just don’t think it is true. And here is one observation to support such a claim (not my only support by any means, but the one I want to talk about right now):
Have you noticed a semantic trick that is used in the headlines of most newspapers and news shows when describing a candidate’s flaws? The trick revolves around how a newspaper reports on a negative of a candidate. The newspaper headlines are formatted as either::
A) Candidate X
+ aspect/behavior/character trait
+ some phrase to connect the two, if needed.
B) “Candidate Y / Group associated with Candidate Y
+ says/claims that, etc.
+ Candidate X
+ aspect/behavior/character
+ some phrase to connect the two, if needed.
An example of A) would be “Cheney's Draft Deferments Not Outside the Norm” (LA Ttimes 9/16/04) or “Bush Proud of His Record in Guard” (LA Times, 9/15/04) or “Teresa Heinz Kerry's accent problem” (Slate, 9/13/04)
An example of B) would be “Kerry Blames Bush for Range of Economic Woes,
”The Democratic Nominee: Kerry Faults Bush for Failing to Press Weapons Ban” (NYTimes 9/13/04).
Notice in option B that the source of the claim is very prominently noted, and that. It is a big part of the focus. The reader of such headlines, even in the most cursory glance, must consider not only the claim, but who said the claim. The reader then, serves as a judge to evaluate the claim in context of the fairness and reliability of the source. However, the source is invariably partisan, and so the claim must inevitably be taken with a grain of salt – of course Kerry thinks that Bush has all these problems. The primary evidence given to support the claim is a statement from the person’s opponents, an obviously biased source (and it is the primary evidence of the claim, right, or else it would have such a prominent position right in the headline.) And this is unfortunately, because it forces the real reasons that such a claim was made from being the focus of attention. It allows a non-thorough reader to miss the actual debate and discount the claims as “mud-slinging.” Net effect: claim is discounted from its true weight.
In Option A however, the source of the claim is not present.. It is the voice of the media outlet itself that is speaking, and most have a relative aura of being fair and balanced (if you don’t count the actual “fair and balanced” media source). Thus, the claim comes across as a factual statement made by an independent and objective source. Further, if you dig down into the article it will most likely give you the reasons why that claim was made, and often the support will be merely a claim or “analysis” of someone from the opposition. Still, prima facie you get the impression of truth. Net effect: claim given weight above its true weight.
Now, once you star noticing how headlines are phrased, the next step is to notice which method is used for which candidate. Although not absolute, you will find the following strong pattern:
Positive Claim about Bush/Cheney/Republicans – Type A – “Bush Fulfilled Guard Duties” -- more weight given
Negative Claim about Bush/Cheney/Republicans – Type B – “Kerry calls Bush Wrong on Environment” -- Less weight given
Positive Claim about Kerry/Edwards/Democrats – Type B – “Democrats Say Kerry’s Stance on Terrorism is Tough” -- Less weight given
Negative Claim about Kerry/Edwards/Democrats – Type A – “Kerry’s Military Records Show Discrepancies” -- More weight given
Keep your eyes out, see if I am right . . .
