The “Buy This Newspaper” Media Bias

I wanted to follow up on our on air discussion yesterday stemming from Tom’s post on media primers. Shortly after the show a friend emailed me a story from Dailykos, published while we were on air. In the article, Markos highlights a NY Times story that appeared online in the AM with one lede, and was presented a few hours later with another lede which changed the entire tone of the story.

In the DailyKos article, a conclusion is drawn that a potential candidate (in this case Caroline Kennedy) learned a valuable lesson about thwarting the media. Using the same examples, another comparison can be made that ties directly into our discussion of media bias.

The first lead, from the AM story, published shortly after Kennedy scrambled away from reporters at an event in New York reads:

In a carefully controlled strategy reminiscent of the vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, aides to Caroline Kennedy interrupted her on Wednesday and whisked her away when she was asked what her qualifications are to be a United States senator.

Hours later, after Kennedy’s “handlers” had seen the NY Times story, another event was arranged offering a more friendly interaction with the media, and the lede of the Times’ online article was changed to read:

She talked about her book, about the Bill of Rights. She talked about raising her family. And, echoing her friend President-elect Barack Obama, she said she could bring change to Washington.

Many will argue that the first lede made a negative comparison of Kennedy to Palin (perhaps knowing it would insult the Democratic hopeful), and therefore implying a snide bias from the journalist, angered at the brush off he/she received at the original event. The second lede, written after a more “media friendly” event was held, might then imply a more “candidate friendly” attitude; the journalist satiated by the granted access and then more inclined to write a positive story.

But is that really what the two ledes tell us? No doubt media watchdogs on both the left and right would say yes. To me, the lede change does imply a bias on the part of the journalist, and the only real bias that exists in current media establishments. Both leads tell the real story. Lede A: Kennedy denied journalists access, reference to Palin inserted to grab the reader’s attention. Lede B: Kennedy granted access to journalists, reference to Obama inserted to grab the reader’s attention. Yet both stories still accurately reflect the facts of the event(s). The first lede was changed because the second event rendered it an inaccurate depiction of what occurred, but it was accurate at the time of publication. The second lede accounts for the changes, and accurately depicts what was discussed when questions were asked by journalists. Both tell the truth, with a twist. But is the twist an agenda? No more than Tyler, Marc or I have an agenda when we try to entice listeners to call in and participate in our discussions, I would say. The only agenda in either lede is to attempt to catch the reader’s eye while relaying the facts of who/when/what/where/.

Sensationalism, both mild and flagrantly over-the-top, is the only true bias. It is the only constant agenda that exists in the mainstream media, at large, despite all the blustery complaints from pundits and activists telling you otherwise.

- Jason