Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus 1 Share on Twitter 2 Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn 1 Share on PInterest 1 Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend (8 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments, In Series: 2016 election
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

A false argument about 'false balance'

By       Message Bob Gaydos     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 9/18/16

- Advertisement -

By Bob Gaydos

Donald Trump ... the birther in chief
Donald Trump ... the birther in chief
(
Image by freakoutnation.com/2015/09/donald-trump-im-not-morally-obligated-to-defend-the-president-on-his-birthplace/)   Permission   Details   DMCA

Hallelujah! Praise the lord and pass the ammunition! The cavalry has arrived. Less than a week after its public editor offered a bass-ackwards interpretation of the "false balance" issue ("Here's the Truth About 'False Balance,''' Sept. 11), The New York Times ran an article at the top of its front page that perfectly demonstrated the proper way to avoid false balance in covering a political campaign: Tell the actual truth.

- Advertisement -

Saturday's (Sept. 17) Times led with a story headlined: "Trump Gives Up a Lie But Refuses to Repent.'' It carried a subhead: "No Apology After 5 Years of Nurturing 'Birther' Issue to Undermine Obama." What followed was a carefully detailed accounting of Donald Trump's "birther" lie, which was nothing more than a racially coded effort to delegitimize the nation's first black president.

The piece, by Michael Barbaro, was actually a news analysis and was labeled as such, but the Times still led the paper with it, rather than the straightforward (presumably unbiased) story reporting on the big announcement by Trump. That's because Barbaro's piece put the whole sordid truth out there, in perspective, for readers to digest. There was no worry about whether the story was "too liberal' (another worry of the new public editor) or too harsh. It was true. Every bit of it. What Trump said and continues to say (he claims Hillary Clinton started the birther rumors) is not.

The news analysis was, in effect, a front-page editorial leading the paper. The Times also ran an editorial inside the paper that echoed the truth that Trump has lied repeatedly about this and other issues. In my humble opinion, this is called good, aggressive, community-minded journalism that holds public figures accountable for their words and actions without worrying whether it will offend the public figure and/or his supporters. It belongs on the front page, especially when the liar wants to be president and lots of people want to believe his lies.

- Advertisement -

The public editor, Liz Spayd, might call this approach "preaching to the choir." She's apparently also concerned that a lot of people consider The Times to be "liberal.'' Gambling? Here? I'm shocked, shocked!

She wrote a piece headlined "Why Readers See The Times as Liberal" (July 24), as if that's a bad thing and as if it's a new thing. In that article she suggested keeping editorials off the front page after a lot of people who said they were conservative objected to a front-page editorial on gun control. So the newspaper, which has argued unabashedly for gun control for decades, should timidly limit its views to the opinion page because they might offend some people whose political views probably revolve around guns and not much else, because those people might not read the paper if they think its reporting is skewed to the left.

News flash: They probably don't read the paper anyway because: 1) It's always been fashionable to bash the most-prestigious paper in the world, especially when its editorial views -- not necessarily its reporting -- don't reflect yours; and 2) it costs too much.

In Spayd's view, Times reporters must resist the arguments about false balance -- in this case, giving political candidates' statements, opinions and actions equal treatment ("fair" treatment) in reporting and writing, even though the truth argues otherwise -- because, in their distaste for Trump the reporters might be tempted to go easy on Clinton.

Go ahead, finish laughing.

The Times, like the rest of the media, has been beating up on Clinton for years, searching for scandal and coming up short. This obviously can be frustrating when the editors and reporters also know she pretty much despises most of them, doesn't hide it and, as a result, brings much of the negative reporting on herself.

- Advertisement -

But " if it's only Clinton supporters now who are complaining about "false balance" in Times reporting on the campaign, that's because virtually the entire mainstream media was guilty of this for months by treating Trump as a qualified candidate for president because the Republican Party didn't know how to stop him. It's also because much of The Times' reporting on Clinton -- presumably tough-minded and fair-- has also been shoddy, not nearly up to the paper's reputation. If you're going to be fair on holding candidates' feet to the fire, be accurate. If anything, that is what has built the newspaper's reputation.

Besides, the Clinton supporters had no gripe with The Times during the primary campaign when Sen. Bernie Sanders was often an asterisk in the paper's coverage of the Clinton coronation as Democratic Party nominee.

In her closing argument on "false balance," Spayd writes, "Fear of false balance is a creeping threat to the role of the media because it encourages journalists to pull back from their responsibility to hold power accountable. All power, not just selected individuals, however vile they might seem."

That's a perfect example of false balance. Reporters, in other words, should not hold back on trying to find something bad to write about Hillary Clinton (again, an absurd premise to start with) just because Donald Trump has proven himself over and over to be (not "seem") vile, deceitful, bigoted, narcissistic, misogynistic, uninformed, racist, unpredictable, volatile, immature.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

https://www.blogger.com/home

Bob Gaydos is a veteran of 40-plus years in daily newspapers. He began as police reporter with The (Binghamton, N.Y.) Sun-Bulletin, eventually covering government and politics as well as serving as city editor, features editor, sports editor and (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
Series: "2016 election"

Going ape in the Oval Office (Article) (# of views) 01/31/2017
Tom Wolfe, LSD, Orange Hair and Me (Article) (# of views) 01/25/2017
Some thoughts on an election (Article) (# of views) 11/11/2016
View All 22 Articles in "2016 election"
Total Views for the Series: 23935   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Look at me, would you believe 'the picture of health'?

Falling in love with squats, sort of

On acting my age, whatever that means

Alt-Right: A trumped-up label for bigots

UFO's and global warming -- it's science,folks

Biceps, triceps, deltoids, oh my!