Lefty Rag

By: Mr. Wilson on April 24, 2007
2 comments
Just because it's a popular topic right now, I want to point out two "the Journal Star is biased" letters in today's LJS letters to the editor. The first complains about the Journal Star's coverage of the LYPG mayoral debate, which Eric Lemke thinks focused too much on Chris Beutler. The second complains about coverage of a Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty poll that showed that 51% of Nebraskans favor repeal of the death penalty. I'll be honest: I used to get uppity about the Journal Star's biases. These days, I just can't work up enough indignation to care. In part it's because my politics have changed. (Before you ask: no, my politics don't neatly line up with the LJS.) But more importantly, it's because I disagree with sentiments like this, from Mr. Lemke (first letter above):
Being a news organization, your duty is to deliver news to the public that is unbiased and forms no opinion.
That simply isn't true. That may be the case for news paid for by our tax dollars (hello PBS!). However, a private company's only duty is to make money for its shareholders, and the company's employees' only duty is to be true to themselves and their values. Besides, objectivity is relative. One man's objective analysis is another man's hyper-partisan screed. Few stories can be told in a way that is free of the author's passions and biases. So what? In the Journal Star's case, it doesn't seem to me that any of their reporters or columnists are going out of their way to hide who they are. None of this is to say that Lincolnites shouldn't get fired up about the Journal Star if they really want to. If you don't like the way the LJS swings and you want them to change, by all means, demand change. It's your duty as a consumer. (There's that word duty again.) I would, however, like to see folks drop the implication that the Journal Star's motives are somehow sinister. The "Journal Star" has no motives beyond the collective motives of its employees, and its individual employees' motives are no more sinister than "I want to finish this damn article so I can go home and watch 'The Office'". To think that the LJS as an entity has a single motive requires assigning it a level of sophistication it does not have.

Comments

See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.

Fletch
April 24, 2007 at 2:11PM

I have no comment on this matter. LOL

Okay, maybe… I will say these positive things about the LJS: I like the way Deena Winter covers city hall. I like the way that when you read the newspaper, you don’t get ink all over your hands like in the old days. I like the fact that they’ve made a small attempt to update the comics page, even though personally I’d like to see it taken further. I like Ground Zero. I like reading Jeff K’s column about the doings in local radio and TV. I like the fact that their website is there and free and it kicks the crap out of the OWH. I like that they freely allow comments on the website, and make it extremely easy to contact an auther of a piece. 

There are indeed many things to criticize, but I would still put the perceived bias idea WAY down on that list. I still think of it like a spectrum, and wherever a single reader falls within that spectrum will dictate the degree of bias and on which side that bias falls. It’s kind of like watching viewer emails on Bill O’Reilly’s show. He can do a story, and hard-core lefties will bitch that he’s a Christian conservative, and hard-core righties will bitch that he’s going all liberal - all from the same story. There’s just too high a degree of political discourse and name calling and it’s dividing the country way too much. One could argue bias to one degree or another in the LJS, the NYT, the WSJ, or even People magazine. Who cares? I think if it’s troubling to a reader, they chould cancel or not read it. I think if a radio DJ offends you, you should change the channel. I think if you don’t like a kind of music, you don’t have to listen to it.

I sat in on a focus group with the LJS a few years back when they were doing their changes to new press/smaller size/etc. I was able to air in person the things I liked and didn’t like, which was cool. There are a number of things that the paper could improve on without worrying about bias.

Dave K
April 24, 2007 at 3:30PM

I’ll take this opportunity to clarify my position: the LJS can print whatever it wants, as long as it doesn’t claim to be an objective news source.  You make the point, correctly, that it’s nearly impossible to report the news without some sort of emotional/philosophical investment from the author.  The only time I have a problem is when people make claims that the news isn’t slanted.  The LJS has no requirement to be 100% unbiased, and no one should ever expect them to be.

Share your thoughts with the community.

Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.