- New York Times editorial, January 1, 1995:
In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.
- New York Times editorial, March 6, 2005:
The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Media Bias KOed by Lexis-Nexis
The Weekly Standard (subscription only [Update: free link]) fact-checked The New York Times regarding restricting use of Senate filibusters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Were these the same authors or not?
If not, this proves nothing. Just two different people with different ideas.
You can do the exact same thing with any publication if you don't care who the authors are.
Uh, Dingo, four points: 1) both pieces were editorials, speaking for the Times as a whole; 2) the two editorials recited diametrically opposed characterizations of history (is the filibuster "an archaic rule" or a "time-honored Senate procedure"?); 3) came to entirely opposite conclusions depending on which party controlled the Senate; and 4) without acknowledging, much less justifying, their change in position.
As I've previously said, "Treating similarly situated persons differently is the very definition of bias. Melody Music v. F.C.C., 345 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1965)." The Times looks, walks and quacks like the left-biased MSN. You haven't shown otherwise.
Sorry, I was on vacation... couldn't comment sooner.
Op-Ed is exactly that, opinion editorials. It is not supposed to be unbiased. There are conservative Op-Ed writers as well. You can't judge a paper solely on these types of articles. Robert Novack has taken many contrarian positions to his own former articles, but I would never say that any paper that publishes his articles is necessarily conservative, nor hypocritical.
Thanks for taking the time to respond
Dingo, I think you are misreading my analysis and conclusions. What I'm not suggesting: 1) Expelling bias from newspapers, especially the editorial voice of the paper itself; 2) Merely reversing a position is evidence of bias.
What I am arguing: 1) The facts are largely unchanged between '95 an '05; 2) The editorials take opposite positions from the same facts; 3) the second editorial never acknowledged its prior inconsistent opinion; 4) the second editorial did not justify the reasons for its flip; 5) the opposite positions favor the Democrats.
When the facts are identical or sufficiently similar, an "objective" analysis would reach the same conclusion regardless of which political parties it helped or hurt. Where the paper previously has taken the opposite view, it should disclose that fact, and provide an explanation independent of outcome for the change. Hiding the prior piece from readers of the second editorial is less embarrassing, for sure. But that shameful decision fatally undermines the persuasiveness of both editorials. After all, the Times editorial page believes it is right. But since it reached opposite conclusions, which of the two editorials is right? I don't know, you don't know--but rather than assisting the reader in distinguishing right wrong, the Times chose a cover-up.
Contrary editorials do not necessarily prove bias--viewpoints change and experience is an excellent teacher. But the Times never made that argument, and didn't let readers understand the reason for the flip. Instead, it put its own interests in avoiding embarrassment ahead of the interest of readers. How is that consistent with the so-called journalistic ethics? And if the Times is deceptive here, what else are they hiding from readers?
Switching sides isn't always bias--when the switch is acknowledged and logically defended. But the Times never addressed the first four points in the second paragraph above. The Times, therefore, did not supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored." Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
Since the Times addressed none of those issues, the only difference between the two editorials is point five: the relevant political party. Such an outcome-determinative approach utterly vitiates the force of both editorials. The high-minded principles in each piece were a sham--because the conclusions bypassed valid syllogisms to promote Democrats.
In sum: same facts, same two parties--yet different outcomes. Again, "[t]reating similarly situated persons differently is the very definition of bias. Melody Music v. F.C.C., 345 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1965)." The available evidence suggests that publishing persuasive pieces based on shared facts is less important to the Times than cheerleading for Democrats. That's not just an opinion--it's bias.
The remedy? It's apparent that neither reporters nor editors are capable of objectivity. So it's time for the Times to change its slogan: "All the Democratic Party Swill Readers Can Swallow."
Post a Comment