The complaints are persistent and consistent: The Oregonian’s reporters and editors are biased.
They are biased against President Bush. They are biased for Bush. They are biased for a sales tax or against a sales tax. They are biased against the police or for the police.
They are biased against SUVs, farmers and “American Idol’s” Clay Aiken. They are biased for the Dixie Chicks, the teachers union and unleashed dogs.
After a month as public editor, I have learned that no criticism of The Oregonian is as constant as that of bias in the news pages. But that criticism gets in the way of both sides hearing each other. Journalists often are too quick to dismiss complaints of bias as coming from people with agendas, rather than hearing what may be legitimate issues. Readers, too, often assume there’s a conspiracy by journalists, when none exists.
A poll released last week by The Pew Research Center found two-thirds of 1,201 people surveyed believe the press tends to favor one side. More than half said the press is liberal, compared with 26 percent who said it is conservative.
We all lose as a democracy if journalists are not credible.
Journalists first must be open to such criticism and examine what in their backgrounds can create blind spots in covering communities.
Tom Rosenstiel, co-author of “The Essentials of Journalism,” argues that journalists tend to be reform-minded and view government as responsible for solving community problems. That has made them slow to report conservative ideas, such as vouchers and welfare reform, that reject a view of government as the solution. Surveys of journalists hint at other potential blind spots. Compared with readers, journalists are more liberal, attend church less, earn more and have more education. The Oregonian’s journalists mostly match those trends.
All journalists have backgrounds that could shape their work. I am white. I am well-paid for an Oregonian. My daughter attends public schools. I am a registered independent but would likely be labeled a liberal. I am a Catholic convert. And I am a Seattle Mariners fan.
But for me and other journalists, what most matters is our professionalism in overcoming aspects of our backgrounds that could yield bias on news pages. Journalists need to apply an approach that Rosenstiel equates with the scientific method. “There is no such thing as an objective human,” he says, “but there is objective work.”
He argues journalists should be judged not on their backgrounds, but on whether they apply what he calls a discipline of verification to their stories. This discipline requires a neutral questioning of one’s work to ensure all views are considered. It requires a humility that strips journalists of an arrogant assumption they know the subject and are closed to new ways of looking at it. That arrogance occasionally has tripped up journalists at The Oregonian.
But readers also can be quick to assume. Many recently called contending a conservative bias influenced coverage of the White House’s use of incorrect intelligence information in the State of the Union. The newspaper incorrectly buried the initial story on the acknowledgment, but it since has published more than 13 stories, including four on Page One and a NewsFocus page.
Readers and journalists lose when the newspaper is cast and judged in the ideological or extreme terms of bias. We can have a more productive conversation.
I hope readers keep calling. Rather than first assuming bias, you could help the newspaper most by asking the questions that The Oregonian’s journalists should be asking themselves: Are the sources of information apparent, varied and sound? Do you know the sources’ biases? Are there unconventional views or perspectives different from the dominant one in the story? Does the story ring true and authentic? Does the story tell you key information that isn’t known? Is the story’s approach broad and inclusive enough?
And over time, does the newspaper reflect your reality? Or, would that be biased?
