The News Slant
Is it possible to be impartial and unbiased? This is an underlying question within the field of journalism that even the most famed in the field will never escape. It is a question that often leads to sentiments and ideals of public distrust, by way of felt or implied distortion of the news and its events, as well as a difficult and brooding uphill battle for journalists everywhere.
As human beings, it is easy to see how anything produced by a human ultimately has some bias within in it. After all, interpretation through out 5 sense through which we see the world, it is our experiences, trails, tribulations, efforts, thoughts and the like which play into the root of our abilities; not every person that can play the piano plays it the same, just as not every writer writes the same. In many instances, this ideal can be a positive, but in the sense of news it's a two way street.
While some have an extravagant ability with words, no matter what that person might produce, the idea of bias and slant somehow always creeps into the mix of analysis. It is almost a natural trait of American society to be skeptical about the validity of most things. People are forever trying to get one over on others, so we filter everything we hear into categories of believability. Even the best works of journalism can't be said to be truly unbiased; yet it is not the job of journalist to simply accept the inevitable, but to recognize this fact, and make a conscious effort to be as fair and impartial as possible to either side of a particular argument.
Setting aside the writing ability of the journalists of the two articles we were given, it's fairly easy to delineate which article advocates drilling in the artic and which takes a more neutral question approach to the idea.
The article headlined with "Senate Votes to Allow Drilling in Artic Reserve," even though an obviously better written and more readable piece, produces a less ardent stance of arctic drilling. It covers the gambit of issues that are currently and have historically surrounded the issue in American eyes. This article states that, "at issue is whether oil companies should be permitted to explore in 1.5 million acres of coastal plain on Alaska's North Slope, northern of the Artic Circle, part of the larger 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." This statement gracefully presents the core of argument while the other article merely states that "that supporters argued that doing so would be good for Alaska's economy and for American energy independence. But environmental groups said the roads and drilling operations would damage the area and promised to redouble their efforts to defeat the bill."
The second article titled, "Senate OKs oil drilling in the Artic," makes almost every effort -- including the headline -- to condone, and nearly advocate artic drilling in Alaska. But I'm not sure whether this "bias," should be chalked up more to slant then it should to poor reporting. At times it feels like the article states irrelevant facts to the issue, and others, it is simply outright flexing a bravado of Republican triumph. After all, as the article states the senate voted to allow drilling for oil by "...riding the strength of Republicans' increased majority to overcome years of failure on the issue and deliver on one of President Bush's campaign promises."
The article makes solid points for pro-drilling, but moves to irrelevant tangents, as well as vague and uninformative quotes when presenting the oppositions opinion. They present the environmentalists and democrats in general almost as if they're whining, because democrats obviously feel "this [bill] is an abuse of power." In fact that article doesn't present the oppositions point at all, but merely presents the opposition talking about the fact that drilling shouldn't happen, not the reasons as to why it shouldn't happen. It is in this sense that one feels a slant of view point and relevance. Ideas and issues can most certainly be frame in one perspective simply by selecting certain quotes instead of others. One can deceptively pretend that they are representing both sides of the argument, but simply because you have quotes from the opposition does not mean that they give the opposition a fair shake.
It is ideals like these which can be easily related to the "assigning blame for the Los Angeles Riots" chapter in Benjamin I. Page's, Who Deliberates?. Media most certainly has an unnatural power to "shape the course of political deliberation." Even with almost seemingly knee-jerk, ignorant comments such as those of Whitehouse spokesman Mirlan Fitzwater, I think media should be the first institution to quickly put a check on its abuse and ability of perspective. I use this as an example, even if I agree with the news stories and broadcasts that the LA riots were not somehow -- or in any way -- the result of liberal social-welfare programs, because I think the media should always make an effort to explore numerous causes to such problems.
However difficult it maybe to attempt the presentation of stupidity, time and size constraints permitting, most well-reasoned ideas should get a fair shake at the public eye. I truly feel opinion should be held to the op-ed page, it shouldn't be masked with deviousness to present one side of an issue. After all, there could be some amount of validity as to the true or natural cause of the LA Riots. Without clear examination, who's to say the LBJ Great Society Programs aren't to blame in some form or fashion. It is too often that mass media thinks so one way and singularly on an issue, at times it feels as if they themselves are caught in a majority thought of their own, and it in turn affects the American people.
It is us who suffer from this secret framing of ideals upon our front pages. I fully understand all the difficulties that come with presenting the news, especially when attempting to present it in an unbiased fashion, but that does not mean it's not a goal we should strive to achieve. We hold our ideals of perfection in unbiased representation as a goal, even if it's not one -- now or ever -- which is feasible. As we reach to make our society better we strive for betterment of ourselves, and most certainly of our media. If it's true that media is often both a reflection of and a window into our society, if we can never achieve its presentation in a completely fair and unbiased frame, we can damn sure and better try.