Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Journalistic practise of "objectivity" creates "bias"
The February 26, 2007 edition of Time Magazine ran a story about Crisis Pregnancy Centers (often called pregnancy resource centers), which work to end abortion "one conscience at a time." It's a new face to the pro-life movement : kind, calm, and nonjudgmental. Given facts about abortion women will choose not to have an abortion, according to the centers' philosophy.
On the surface the Time report seems to fairly handle the story about crisis pregnancy centers. However, the story is anything but fair. In fact it provides a forum for pro-choice advocates to shoot down every claim made by the pro-lifers. This is a result of the way the story is constructed. The story follows all the rules of "objective and balanced" reporting taught in journalism schools. Those rules are the source of the bias in the story.
Take this example:
"Much of the anti-abortion movement remains focused on changing laws, tightening restrictions one by one, state by state. But wood and her team talk of changing hearts. They are part of a whole other strategy that is more personal and more pastoral, although to some people it's every bit as controversial."
""It's easy to support the goal: helping women facing an unplanned pregnancy. What critics challenge are the means, the information these centers give, the methods they use and the costs they ignore. Even among pro-life activists, there's an argument about emphasis: Do you focus on fear and guilt, to make choosing an abortion harder, or on hope and support, to make 'choosing life' easier? Either way, the pregnancy-center movement takes the fight over abortion deep inside some of the most intimate conversations a woman ever has."
On the surface these lines appear to be innocent; however, the whole second paragraph, unattributed, puts doubt into the reader's mind about the legitimacy of the approach. In a subtle way it is telling the reader how to think.
Here is another example:
"... the Bush administration has made them a center-piece of compassionate conservatism, a signal to members of the President's evangelical base that he shares their values. But as a new presidential race looms, the signals may be shifting, the rancor of the public fight fading. Hillary Clinton has called abortion 'a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women' and talks about improving education and access to birth control so that abortion becomes a right most women never have to exercise."
The better alternative, implied by the piece, is offered by Hillary Clinton. With so many candidates entering the presidential nomination process why choose Clinton as the pro-choice advocate? The article does mention the Republican candidates: Giuliani who is pro-choice, Romney who used to be, and McCain whose "pro-life record doesn't keep social conservatives from viewing him with some suspicion."
Here is a third example:
"The latest trend is to convert pregnancy centers into health clinics that offer free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and testing of r sexually transmitted diseases. What they will not offer is referral for birth control. Married clients wanting information on contraception are referred to their own doctor or pastor. But, as Wood explains, most clients are unmarried, and 'the Bible clearly states that sex outside of marriage is against God's will for our lives.'"
"That is enough to discredit the centers in the eyes of many pro-choice groups, which have always argued that the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place."
(This no longer is an argument about abortion; it's about sex-education. The solution to unwanted pregnancy is sex-education, it seems. Again the statement is unattributed and it provides rebuttal to the pregnancy center point of view.)
In fact, consistently throughout the article, when one point is made about the pregnancy centers, it is countered by an opposite point of view. It's this kind of so-called objectivity that creates bias. Rather than just informing its audience about pregnancy centers, Time perpetuates the controversy, suggesting through its reporting that this is a two-sided argument, with no third or fourth or fifth viewpoints. In fact, it insults readers. We can't just be informed, but are told what to think. In addition, everything is painted black-and-white with no middle ground.
The journalist tries to expose reality and create accuracy by "telling both sides of the story." Most stories are so complex that there are always more than just two sides. An informed and educated public will find its own balance and can make its own judgments based on reading and research. Some stories can stand alone without seeking out opposing viewpoints.
On the surface the Time report seems to fairly handle the story about crisis pregnancy centers. However, the story is anything but fair. In fact it provides a forum for pro-choice advocates to shoot down every claim made by the pro-lifers. This is a result of the way the story is constructed. The story follows all the rules of "objective and balanced" reporting taught in journalism schools. Those rules are the source of the bias in the story.
Take this example:
"Much of the anti-abortion movement remains focused on changing laws, tightening restrictions one by one, state by state. But wood and her team talk of changing hearts. They are part of a whole other strategy that is more personal and more pastoral, although to some people it's every bit as controversial."
""It's easy to support the goal: helping women facing an unplanned pregnancy. What critics challenge are the means, the information these centers give, the methods they use and the costs they ignore. Even among pro-life activists, there's an argument about emphasis: Do you focus on fear and guilt, to make choosing an abortion harder, or on hope and support, to make 'choosing life' easier? Either way, the pregnancy-center movement takes the fight over abortion deep inside some of the most intimate conversations a woman ever has."
On the surface these lines appear to be innocent; however, the whole second paragraph, unattributed, puts doubt into the reader's mind about the legitimacy of the approach. In a subtle way it is telling the reader how to think.
Here is another example:
"... the Bush administration has made them a center-piece of compassionate conservatism, a signal to members of the President's evangelical base that he shares their values. But as a new presidential race looms, the signals may be shifting, the rancor of the public fight fading. Hillary Clinton has called abortion 'a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women' and talks about improving education and access to birth control so that abortion becomes a right most women never have to exercise."
The better alternative, implied by the piece, is offered by Hillary Clinton. With so many candidates entering the presidential nomination process why choose Clinton as the pro-choice advocate? The article does mention the Republican candidates: Giuliani who is pro-choice, Romney who used to be, and McCain whose "pro-life record doesn't keep social conservatives from viewing him with some suspicion."
Here is a third example:
"The latest trend is to convert pregnancy centers into health clinics that offer free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and testing of r sexually transmitted diseases. What they will not offer is referral for birth control. Married clients wanting information on contraception are referred to their own doctor or pastor. But, as Wood explains, most clients are unmarried, and 'the Bible clearly states that sex outside of marriage is against God's will for our lives.'"
"That is enough to discredit the centers in the eyes of many pro-choice groups, which have always argued that the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place."
(This no longer is an argument about abortion; it's about sex-education. The solution to unwanted pregnancy is sex-education, it seems. Again the statement is unattributed and it provides rebuttal to the pregnancy center point of view.)
In fact, consistently throughout the article, when one point is made about the pregnancy centers, it is countered by an opposite point of view. It's this kind of so-called objectivity that creates bias. Rather than just informing its audience about pregnancy centers, Time perpetuates the controversy, suggesting through its reporting that this is a two-sided argument, with no third or fourth or fifth viewpoints. In fact, it insults readers. We can't just be informed, but are told what to think. In addition, everything is painted black-and-white with no middle ground.
The journalist tries to expose reality and create accuracy by "telling both sides of the story." Most stories are so complex that there are always more than just two sides. An informed and educated public will find its own balance and can make its own judgments based on reading and research. Some stories can stand alone without seeking out opposing viewpoints.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Local government can best deal with local issues
I have always felt that local government can best deal with local
issues. Residents of Nodaway County, Missouri have been fighting the
introduction of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) into their
area. State law allows 17,000 hogs within 2000 feet of a home.
(That's a town of hogs bigger than Maryville, the county seat. Hogs
may drink as much water and leave as much waste or more than humans.)
issues. Residents of Nodaway County, Missouri have been fighting the
introduction of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) into their
area. State law allows 17,000 hogs within 2000 feet of a home.
(That's a town of hogs bigger than Maryville, the county seat. Hogs
may drink as much water and leave as much waste or more than humans.)
The local health unit has established regulations that would restrict
CAFOs. Now the state has introduced a bill taking away local health
unit jurisdiction to regulate agriculture-related activities.
Missouri Senate Bill 364 - This act provides that state laws and
regulations shall preempt local laws regarding agricultural operations
and provides that any farm or farming-related activity that is in
compliance with all applicable state and federal laws shall also
therefore be in compliance with any local law or ordinance. Local
laws regarding the licensing or operation of a farm or farming-related
activity that are not identitical to state law and regulations, as
promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources, are rendered null
and void by the act.
Republican Senator Chris Koster (573-751-1430) introduced the bill.
By-in-large Republicans represent the rural parts of the state
Democrats represent the cities. This bill if enacted would adversely
affect rural Missouri. Not only are CAFOs squeezing out small
farmers, but this type of legislation makes it so that farmers have
little say in the regulations that govern their operations.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
