News Bias by Irrelevant Facts and Word Choice
How Selection of Facts, Quotes, Words and Phrases Slants the News
Oct 22, 2009
On Sunday, October 18, the FBI raided a slaughterhouse in the small rural town of Kinsman, IL. Kinsman, with a population of less than 110 residents and no local police force, found itself the target of approximately 100 federal agents.
Three News Stories: Same Facts, Different Angles
By Monday, October 20, three different news sources had three very different approaches to the story. Though the facts of the three stories matched, the reporters’ choices of relevant facts and choices of phrases and quotes slants the stories differently.
Story One: Reporting the Facts, Avoiding Speculation
The online news outlet, Chicago Breaking News Center, hosted by WGN and the Chicago Tribune, ran a 188-word report on the FBI raid. The article stated that the First World Management meat-packing plant in Kinsman was raided, as well as a residence in Chicago, IL.
The report included one line stating that both properties were owned by the same Chicago resident. It featured two quotes, one from an FBI spokesperson and one from an employee at the Kinsman meat-packing plant who declined identifying himself for the news report.
The article was short, factual, and to the point, focusing only upon the verifiable facts on hand.
The closest the report came to speculating beyond immediate substantiated evidence was the closing sentence, which stated that “sources said the investigation includes a look at possible immigration irregularities.” Otherwise, it presented the information provided by authorities and did not plant additional ideas or suspicions in the minds of readers.
Story Two: Journalistic Speculation Through Irrelevant Emphasis
The Morris Daily Herald, based in Morris, IL (approximately 15 miles northeast of Kinsman), printed a 652-word article on the Kinsman raid, which included quotes from FBI spokesperson Cynthia Yates, Grundy County Sheriff Terry Marketti and meat locker employee Pat Hardy.
Though wordy, the article remained factual. However, a noticeable emphasis appeared at the end of the report regarding the nationality and religious affiliation of the meat-packing plant employees.
The emphasis first appears when the journalist reported that “Hardy said the building is owned by a doctor from Chicago with a Middle Eastern name. The last name is Rana, she said. She did not know his given name.”
The inclusion of the phrase “with a Middle Eastern name” implies that the nationality is significant to the story. Placing significance upon the nationality in the current political climate invariably leads readers to speculate a 9/11 parallel, even though no such parallel is substantiated through the facts and evidence on hand.
To avoid nudging the threshold of journalistic speculation and biased reporting, the journalist could revise the sentence to say, “Hardy said the building is owned by a doctor from Chicago with the last name Rana. She did not know his given name.”
The door to journalistic speculation opens wide through the reporter’s later choice of quotes. The following quote elevates the emphasis on the nationality and religion of the employees bearing immediate significance on the raid:
“Who works there is a good question,” [Hardy] said. “Three or four Mexicans. The rest are Muslims. They pray together, 5 to 7 times a day (in a nearby building). They’re always saying, ‘I’ve got to go pray.’ When it’s a big holiday, they set it up in the meat locker and do their prayers there.”
Because there is no evidence that the nationality or religion of the employees was related to the raid, emphasis upon those two points creates journalistic speculation.
Story Three: Slanted Through Word Choice and Irrelevant Emphasis
Kim Smith of the Herald-News, based in Joliet, IL (located approximately 45 miles northeast of Kinsman) published a 453-word report, including quotes from FBI spokesperson Ross Rice and two anonymous sources who were residents of the town.
The second lead paragraph is where this article went awry and biased the article. The paragraph ran as follows:
“Was an al-Qaida cell lurking in the Grundy County village […]? Was the building at 6260 S. Kinsman Road housing illegal immigrants? Was meat slaughtered there done illegally?”
Though the journalist does not report that any of the three options are the reason of the raid, presenting the three options plants these ideas into the public’s mind.
The most damaging phrases of the lead paragraph are “al-Qaida” and “illegal immigrants.” In two phrases, the reporter inadvertently tagged the employees of the meat-packing plant as potential terrorists and/or illegal immigrants, without substantiating evidence.
Later, the article includes a paragraph that reads:
“People with guns surrounded men who appeared to be dressed in Middle Eastern garments and were seated in front of the buildings, witnesses said. Later, the men were let go.”
Like the Morris Daily Herald article in the second example, the emphasis upon the Middle Eastern nationality is elevated by the reporter’s consistent reference to it. Rather than simply report that armed federal officials surrounded the plant’s employees, the reporter chose to emphasize the nationality.
Further, the word choice of “people with guns” is vague and does not inform readers precisely who surrounded the plant’s employees.
Watching Words, Choosing Relevant Facts
News reporters have a duty to select every word of their reports with full and deliberate intention. The impact of a single unintentional word can be catastrophic.
Consider the third story in the above case. The reporter’s use of phrases like “al-Qaida” and “illegal immigrants” clearly applies to the meat-packing plant employees, based solely upon their nationality and Islamic religious practices.
Without clear and supporting evidence, these phrases should not appear in the article. Otherwise it risks labeling the workers as terrorists and illegal immigrants and planting ungrounded suspicions into the public mind.
Reporters' opinions regarding what is or is not important without substantiating evidence to back it up belongs solely within the realm of the editorial page.
Reporters have a responsibility to the public to be impartial purveyors of fact. Journalistic speculation has no place within the context of a news report. News reports should be concise, objective, accurate, and precise.
Speculation is the job of the reader. Fact is the duty of the reporter.
 |
