Lincolnite: Lincoln's Online Community

I don’t subscribe to the Journal Star, but is article the above-fold, front-page story?  It wouldn’t surprise me if it was. 

Nevertheless, I found an interesting couple of sentences that somehow got past LJS editors :

“The Bush budget would focus on the country’s priorities and hold or reduce discretionary spending. It would eliminate or reduce 141 programs not getting results or fulfilling essential priorities.”

I’d like for someone to tell me what is wrong with stopping or cutting the funding of inadequate or useless programs.  If a program isn’t effective, then it shouldn’t exist or be funded.  And no, making sure people like Sue Hinrichs are employed isn’t a reason to fund impotent social programs.

As long as Cindy Lange Kubick maintains her high level of journalistic integrity, I can’t complain.

...is [the] article the above-fold, front-page story?

Yup

That’s not surprising.  At all.  A few weeks ago they ran an above-fold, front page “analysis” with a byline something like this: “[Bush’s Baghdad] Trip marks failures of the Administration’s foreign policy”.  They’re becoming the DN more and more every day.

While I’m probably going to be dismissed as having a bias of my own, help me out here.

First off, where exactly is the bias in writing a story about how budget cuts are going to affect local agencies?

Secondly, how would someone without bias cover that story? Is it somehow more responsible to pretend that people won’t be affected?

And then a few comments above mine, is someone criticizing the Journal Star for accidentally including the Bush admin’s rationale?

I want to make sure I understand this situation correctly. 1) The Journal Star is biased because they cover some negative implications of Bush cuts. 2) Since we know they’re biased, because we know, the fact that they left explanations for these cuts within the story must prove...something...it just doesn’t prove there’s any balance or context to the story, because we know it’s biased.

Local newspapers localize national stories. I’m not sure what is so “DN” about that, or what exactly dismissing a paper as “the DN” means, considering that lowly student paper has scooped both its corporate competitors on several big stories over the past few years.

There’s no doubt that some questionable decisions are made considering placement and whatnot. Often times, decisions like that are made based upon other stories falling through, having to be held, or photos falling through.

To blindly dismiss everything as bias is hardly taking some intellectual high road.

I had a hunch you’d show up, Neal.

First off, where exactly is the bias in writing a story about how budget cuts are going to affect local agencies?

I see two types of bias. The first is the bias of perspective. Ms. Young is writing with a particular perspective in mind. I’m not assigning value to her bias, but it is a bias. The second is the bias of exclusion. I would have liked to have seen some quotes from some folks willing to defend the cuts, other than just the White House mouthpiece relegated to the last three paragraphs, and especially local or state individuals.

Is it somehow more responsible to pretend that people won’t be affected?

That’s not what I’m saying at all. There is certainly a story here worth telling. There are lots of stories worth telling when it comes to Bush’s budget decisions.

And then a few comments above mine, is someone criticizing the Journal Star for accidentally including the Bush admin’s rationale?

Personally, I think the paragraph should have ended “It would eliminate or reduce 141 programs that, according to administration officials, are not getting results or fulfilling essential priorities.” I think Dave K was just being a little snarky.

To blindly dismiss everything as bias is hardly taking some intellectual high road.

Nor is blindly dismissing somebody’s charge of bias as intellectually low merely because you disagree.

I don’t think I am “blindly dismiss[ing] everything as bias”. For one thing, “everything” is certainly far too broad for what I’ve said here, and I haven’t really dismissed anything. If I were dismissing it I might have said “DeAnne Young is an idiot and this column is rubbish”. Instead, I merely described the article as I perceive it. The article’s main story is fine, if a little light on substance, but its tilt struck me as both evident and inappropriate for a 1A story. Put it on 1B, take out the patronizing token White House quote and add a couple local commenters who can defend the cuts, and you’ve got yourself a pretty decent article.

Ms. Young is writing with a particular perspective in mind. I’m not assigning value to her bias, but it is a bias.

So what is this perspective, in your analysis? And what about this perspective is journalistically dishonest or incredible?

I firmly believe there’s nothing wrong with writing from a particular perspective, unless we have differing definitions of what perspective is.

The second is the bias of exclusion. I would have liked to have seen some quotes from some folks willing to defend the cuts, other than just the White House mouthpiece relegated to the last three paragraphs, and especially local or state individuals.

But that’s not what the story was about. The story was about how the cuts are affecting these people. That is a story to be told that is not a value judgment of the cuts; it’s the real implications of the cuts.

News stories do not need to include enough information to make everyone on both sides of the aisle feel confident they’re right by the time they’ve finished reading. That is not “balance.”

Do you feel that the story must include some quote or fact that tells the reader “This is happening, but it’s okay that it’s happening” ?

Nor is blindly dismissing somebody’s charge of bias as intellectually low merely because you disagree.

You’re right, but I’ve neither made a blanket statement about the Journal Star’s obvious political leanings, created a blog post to further dismiss these political leanings and the paper’s journalistic integrity and merit, or attempted to explain a reporter’s behavior based upon my ability to deduce their intentions from their work and the decisions of copy editors and designers.

What I have done is attempted to ask where you’re coming from and explain why I disagree where I do. Had I included only the kicker, you’d have a point. Had you done anything but insult Young and the paper with nothing to back it up, I wouldn’t.

And how exactly is “everything” too far broad from what you’ve said here? You clearly state that the political leanings of the Journal Star are “no big secret.” Did you feel the same way when they endorsed Bush and Fortenberry? Did you feel the same way when Don Walton interviewed Lee Terry, and Terry was allowed to go on, with none of the relevant damning context, about how those other politicians have been taking DeLay money and voting with him?

There’s plenty to disagree with in the stories and decisions at the Journal Star - and every newspaper for that matter. But I find it a little ironic that the two-graph cheap-shot ridden blog post that started this bemoaned how you “...miss finding real news and intellectual stimulation...”

But that’s not what the story was about. The story was about how the cuts are affecting these people. That is a story to be told that is not a value judgment of the cuts; it’s the real implications of the cuts.

Excellent point Neal.

“So what is this perspective, in your analysis? And what about this perspective is journalistically dishonest or incredible?”

The lead paragraph in the article is where the bias is presented.  The implication is made that without the Iraq War and ‘a constituency clamoring for tax relief’, then social programs would receive regular funding. In other words, without the Iraq War and ‘tax cuts for the rich’, then everything would be okay for Lincoln Action Program. Readers are meant to associate these decreases in spending with the Iraq War, an incredibly divisive issue.  Because the author does this, her article becomes more influential. 

If you still don’t understand the bias in that, then I’ll suggest another opening paragraph:

“How do you give more economical freedom and lower the tax burden on American citizens?  If you’re President George W. Bush crafting the 2007 budget, you decrease funding to socialist programs that are neither getting results nor fulfilling essential priorities.”

And what about this perspective is journalistically dishonest or incredible? [emphasis added]

What part of “I’m not assigning value to her bias” did you not understand?

I firmly believe there’s nothing wrong with writing from a particular perspective, unless we have differing definitions of what perspective is.

Nor do I.

But that’s not what the story was about. The story was about how the cuts are affecting these people. That is a story to be told that is not a value judgment of the cuts; it’s the real implications of the cuts.

Fair enough, although if I may quibble, the “real implications of the cuts” extend far beyond the stories told in the article.

But let’s leave that lay, because it’s not important. What has been lost in our dialog is the real meaning of this post, most of which is contained in the second paragraph. This was not intended to be a particularly deep or damning post, and certainly not one deserving of any substantial amount of disagreement. (Unless one were to claim that the LJS has no bias, but you aren’t doing that.) Instead, it’s just one guy’s whines about his local paper not being exactly what he wishes it were. Pretty shallow stuff. Ms. Young’s article just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you read the post from that perspective I think you’ll find that the only real dig I intended to get in on the LJS is the Lifetime comment. I stand by that one. I don’t think the first sentence is inaccurate, and it is not intended as an insult. The “slanted and sloppy” comment I stand behind because (1) I think the article is slanted, and (2) I don’t think it was one of Ms. Young’s better articles. That’s all. There really is no deeper meaning to it. Considering the unintended effects of this little post, I think “sloppy” might be a good adjective to apply to me as well.

Whether or not you buy all of that, I do want to make sure you understand one thing: I did not write this post from the perspective of a Bush lackey. It would really bum me out if you were reading my stuff while thinking that.

If you’re President George W. Bush crafting the 2007 budget, you decrease funding to socialist programs that are neither getting results nor fulfilling essential priorities.

Completely off-topic, rhetorical question: when did socialist replace communist in the right-wing vocabulary? It’s very popular these days, like neo-con is on the left. Personally I think neo-con is the better word. It sounds harsher, meaner. The word socialist just isn’t all that intimidating.

Mr. Wilson,

I hate to see you back down so easily...there goes your vote for mayor...ha ha.  I was with you until you totally gave up on every point you were trying to make.  I wish you would have continued making the argument...because I think it was a good one. 

As for alternative “biases"/"viewpoints", I think the one thing we can all agree on is the need for more of them in the Lincoln Journalistic community.  This is why I tune into Lincolnite everyday...a fresh voice and perspective.  Hopefully that is the role it will fill.

I agree that no bias in a newspaper is impossible, but I do believe there is a real un-biased ideal for a news organization and I believe a news organizations goal should be to strive for that objective.  Something that often goes unscrutinized by the Journal Star’s editors.  Is it worse than any other newspaper...I’m not sure.  There is a place for opinion, and that is in the Op-Ed section of the newspaper. 

Having said all of this, I think the new model will be something like what existed in Early America...rather than a model of un-biased news.  I think we are moving towards a wide-range of news/journalistic sources with varying degrees of bias.  A intent observer and opinion-maker can wade through these opinions and come through the much with something close to the truth. 

Call me a dreamer....

I miss finding real news and intellectual stimulation in my newspaper

What do you expect Umberto Eco? LOL, it’s the Journal Star dude.

Having said all of this, I think the new model will be something like what existed in Early America...rather than a model of un-biased news.  I think we are moving towards a wide-range of news/journalistic sources with varying degrees of bias.

I agree with you PP. And I like this trend too. My favorite TV Channel is C-SPAN.

Based on Dave’s idea of an unbiased lede, I can see why he might think the story is biased.

You’re right, the Iraq War is a divisive issue. But would you have people pretend that there is not a direct relationship between the Iraq War and the skyrocketing defense costs that have necessitated drastic cuts? Should we just pretend that defense costs naturally increase by hundreds of billions, so as not to offend our readers who like Iraq Wars, so we don’t make them think we’re biased?

Maybe one could argue that the story is biased because it could be seen as challenging the notion that these programs are not “getting results” or “fulfilling essential priorities,” however those might be conveniently defined.

No, apparently the unbiased road is to accept such administration generalities at their face value, and the lazy way is to report and show the audience just how credible such accusations are.

After all, it certainly is much easier to hear these things called ineffective failures when you don’t have to know anything about what they actually do accomplish.

Maybe one could justify the bias accusation on that, but as far as I can see here, no one has.

“Based on Dave’s idea of an unbiased lede, I can see why he might think the story is biased.”

I didn’t say what I wrote was an unbiased lead.  I was showing that it is possible to bias a story about how budget cuts affect certain programs.  You seemed to think this was not possible.

“You’re right, the Iraq War is a divisive issue. But would you have people pretend that there is not a direct relationship between the Iraq War and the skyrocketing defense costs that have necessitated drastic cuts? Should we just pretend that defense costs naturally increase by hundreds of billions, so as not to offend our readers who like Iraq Wars, so we don’t make them think we’re biased?”
Actually, without funding disgusting amounts of socialist programs, I think we could fund the Iraq War just fine.  NEWSFLASH: The Iraq War is not the only thing the government must pay for.  There are a lot of things we could find have a ‘direct relationship’ with necessary cuts.  Giving only one of them (which happens to be the most divisive issue of the day) is an example of bias.

Neal,

Quite frankly your defense, while hearty, is a bit hypocritical considering most of your cartoon work winds up on the Op-Ed page.  I think we might call your opinion in this debate a bit conflicted.

I can see why you’d think I have a stake in this, which is why I acknowledged from the beginning that I might be dismissed for my perceived bias.

I think my relationship to the paper is worth considering. However, I don’t see how that makes anything I’ve said hypocritical.

As the author of the aforementioned Journal Star article does...I choose to dismiss your opinion.  Y The Journalistic monopoly that the LJS has in this town and your connections to said organization obviously make your opinion worthless...I choose to filter your opinion through my bias and I propose that the Honorable Mr. Wilson ban your from the comment boards.  The fact that you did not clearly identify your connections and interests in the LJS show what a seedy undertaking this is.  You were clearly trying to influence public opinion on this issue in a clandestine fashion. 

Reference:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

I hope my sarcasm is not lost. 

P.S.- The hypocritcal claim related to the fact that you provide obviously biased coverage (via your cartoons) but that your cartoons wind up on the Op-Ed page of the LJS.  Maybe they ought to consider this for more of their “news” articles.