Archived Story

JAMIE KELLY: A reader's guide to spotting bias in journalism
By JAMIE KELLY of the Missoulian

We here at your daily Missoulian try hard to present the news objectively, always striving for that "fair and balanced" coverage you'd get, say, if FOX News hokey-pokeyed to the left about 50 miles and CNN disavowed communism.

"We report, you decide." A nice balance, see, just like if the FOX News staff smoked a Hefty bag of reefer and devoted some time to saving the Southwestern playa horned titmouse or some such garbage at least one day out of the month.

In these ever-confrontational, emotional and political days ahead of us, it is incumbent upon you, the common reader, to spot bias or potential bias on the part of us journalists, the rich and important people.

How do you spot bias? That is a complex question. Well, maybe not complex. It only contains six syllables. Six lousy syllables! Talk about a weak effort! What am I, some sort of crayon-toting third-grader? Let's try that again, using the journalism training I got in that thing that teaches journalism, uhh, what do they call it? Oh yeah, journalism school.

"In what manner does one determine the deviation from ostensible objectivity in the reportage of today?"

POW! That's 32 Fred-loving syllables! Yeah! Read it and weep, suckers! I rule!

Fred is my pet name for God.

Anyway, most of the "bias" in today's reporting comes in the form of tricky little devices imbedded cleverly in articles and reports in order that we may subconsciously implant our agendas into your thick heads.

For instance, we might have the following sentence in one of our articles:

"Democrat Mergatroid Skittlesniff vowed, if elected, to overhaul Montana's tax code, and said he would not rule out the possibility of a sales tax if it offset property taxes, he told supporters at a noon luncheon."

Pretty objective, see? And boring as hell! That's the kind of thing you'd expect from us, the rich and important people.

Now, watch as I cunningly sneak in some liberal bias.

"Democrat Mergatroid Skittlesniff vowed, if elected, to emancipate Montanans from a stupid tax code that was devised by corporate-leg-humping Republicans who shoot skeet using baby seals launched off the decks of their Flathead Lake cruisers."

Look closely at that sentence. Is there anything there that tips you off as to its liberal bias? I know it's hard, so I'll just park my fanny during this brief commercial break.

("Confident! Confident! Dry and secure! Raise your hand, raise your haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, if you're Sure!").

We're back! And . . . you've got the answer right! There IS no liberal bias! Trick question!

Now, let's insert a little conservative bias into the original sentence! Be on guard: Is this another "trick" question??? Here we go:

"Rush Limbaugh says bark like a Staffordshire terrier! And go to church, you godless heathen. Hooray, war on drugs!"

Now, is there any conservative slant to the previous sentence? Of course there is, you godless heathen! Do I have to explain everything to you people? Man.

Another device in vogue with journalists of all political stripes, running the gamut from Che Guevara T-shirt peddlers to left-leaning Democrats, is quoting anonymous sources. The Washington Post, for instance, is never known to have quoted anyone with an actual name besides a part-time plumber named Steve Jones, who as it turns out is also Deep Throat.

Journalists mainly use anonymous sources when, a) the source would be putting his life or career at risk by speaking to the media, b) the source can be trusted to deliver accurate information like that guy who conjured up President Bush's National Guard documents for CBS, or c) the reporter is on deadline and needs to make up some crap real quick-like.

Let's say you run into this paragraph:

"Sources close to the investigation told the Missoulian that three out of four dentists surveyed prefer sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum. That means 25 percent of dentists say it's OK to chew sugary gum. What the hell? That's weird. The sources said these dentists will be identified, rounded up and tortured with Aunt Jemima syrup by the Tooth Enamel Division of the Justice Department."

Now just because some nameless source claims something in an article doesn't make it so! Beware such sources, because some of them are merely full of that stuff that comes out the non-head end of a horse.

"Sources said Jamie Kelly has won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary and will be loved and admired by the public. His bikini-model entourage of nymphomaniac girlfriends will be on hand to deliver the $100 million check."

That sort of thing.

Jamie Kelly can be reached at 523-5254 or at jkelly@missoulian.com.


Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)
Current Word Count:
   

|

Subscribe to the Missoulian today — get 2 weeks free!