by Craig Colby
“The media is biased!”
I hear this a lot, particularly from friends with a certain political bent. I keep an eye on the articles they share to see what meets their standards of impartiality. A trend has appeared. Not only do people have trouble reading the news, they have trouble identifying news in the first place.
Loading Up on Language
This article, from the Business and Politics website, or BizPacreview, was shared on Facebook by a relative in the United States. It’s about the night 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot three people, killing two, during a night of protests and riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Here’s the first sentence:
“Violent Riots by Black Lives Matter and Antifa extremists in Kenosha, Wisconsin late Tuesday evening reportedly came to a preemptive halt when armed vigilantes, who have been accused by the left of being militia members, opened fire on the extremists, killing two and injuring at least one.”
This sentence is as loaded as it gets. First, it starts with the “violent riots”, taking the emphasis off the shooting. Second, there is a big difference in the way certain groups are discussed. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are blamed for the violence and labelled extremists. The vigilantes are merely accused of being part of a militia. According to this article, Black Lives Matter and Antifa were definitely causing the problems, but militias only may have been involved. Hard to say. It’s almost as though the person writing the article wasn’t there himself, checking out his facts. No support is given for these statements, nor will there be.
After one sentence your spider sense should be tingling like crazy. Loaded language is a huge tipoff that this is article is biased.
Here are the next two sentences.
“The dictionary describes a ‘vigilante’ as someone who ‘undertake[s] law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.’ It is with very little doubt that the authorities in Democrat-run cities, doing next to nothing to help quell the violence, are considered ‘inadequate.’ Citizens are getting fed-up.”
First, there is no source for the dictionary quote. I checked three online dictionaries, and two had something close to this. Still, the author should identify his source. Every good news organization would. Second, the author suggests that leaders in “Democrat-run cities” aren’t doing anything. His opinion is stated as common knowledge.
Word Swap
The kicker for me, was in the third paragraph:
“Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth [said] that one [extremist] had been shot in the head and another in the chest late Tuesday, just before midnight. Beth didn’t know where the other person was shot, but video posted on social media showed someone had been shot in the arm,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
Take note of the second word in brackets. If you check the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Article being quoted, you’ll see that person shot was identified as a “victim” not an “extremist”. The author of this article swapped out the terms. The Sentinel article correctly identifies someone who has been shot as the victim of the shooting, in contrast to the shooter. Business and Politics editorializes about the person who was shot. He’s an extremist. It’s almost as though the author wants us to dislike the shooting victim.
Just kidding. It’s not almost. That’s exactly what he’s doing.
What is This?
I showed the article to my brother, Scott. The first thing he said was “this is an opinion piece”. He should know. He’s the opinions page editor for the Toronto Star. The problem is the article isn’t identified as an opinion piece. Actual news organizations let you know when you’re reading on opinion. Often it has the word “opinion” on it or at least has a picture of the author along with their name. This has a byline, but it looks like a news item.
I think Scott is being generous. To me, this is propaganda. Every paragraph loads up on innuendo, but offers little information. Right wing troublemakers, like the Boogalo Boys, are mentioned briefly, in paragraph 14, where their possible presence is blown off as an unsubstantiated rumour. Black Lives Matters and Antifa, on the other hand, are fingered as being there and busting up the town.
The purpose of this article isn’t to inform. It’s to discredit protests, suggest Democrats approve of rioting and, mainly, to undermine Black Lives Matter. The piece equates Black Lives Matter with Antifa through constant association. Here’s the catch. The groups are completely different. Black Lives Matter is both social movement and an organization. You can go to their website to find out about them. Antifa is loosely tied together from small groups of people. Right now, they’re the go-to bogeyman in right wing media. By constantly mentioning the two together, the author wants the reader to see both organizations as the same.
The entire article is as slanted as a double diamond ski slope but it’s dressed like news. That tricks people. The loaded language, opinion stated as facts, and a lack of attribution should make a reader suspicious. For some of you this seems ridiculously easy to spot, but I have friends and relatives who share these stories. A lot. These publications are informing their opinions.
But, What About…
Fans of sources like Bizpacreview respond “what about CNN? Or the New York Times?” The bias in legitimate media doesn’t look like the same. It’s expressed in which stories are chosen and how much weight they’re given. For example, when journalist Bob Woodward released the recording of President Trump admitting to intentionally downplaying the deadliness of the coronavirus, CNN emphasized the contradiction between Trump’s knowledge and his actions. The only mention on the front page of Fox’s website was an article questioning Woodward’s judgement on not sharing this information earlier.
If it seems like I’m picking on conservative sources here, it’s because their political bias seems to me to be a bigger part of their identity. Traditional news sources have a different bias, and it’s not political. It’s commercial. What they care about is capturing your eyeballs. The most memorable guideline in news is “if it bleeds it leads”. Sensationalism and conflict are their north stars, not leftist dogma.
How Do You Avoid Bias?
You can’t. You can only minimize its effect by reading as many different biases as possible. Check out competing news sources. That way you can tease out the facts. Then, you form your own opinion, not drink a big glass of theirs.
Remember that real news organizations identify their sources and attribute where they get their facts. At least, they do as much as they can.
So in summary, read a lot of news. Just make sure you’re actually reading news.
Get stories as soon as they're published!
Craig Colby is a television executive producer, producer, director, writer and story editor. He runs a storytelling consulting and production service for businesses. He can be reached at craig@colbyvision.net.