Some readers who believe the Star-Telegram splatters the paper with left-wing bias got an edition dripping with proof last Monday. Or so they felt.
What they actually received was proof of momentary blind spots in our editing process, the subjective nature of our work and an example of the perils of newspapering in this age of media-bashing.
It all began at the top of Monday’s Page One, where we promoted Life & Arts’ light-hearted comparison of Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards, the presumptive Democratic candidate for vice president.
Some readers found outrageous bias in the promo strip’s pictures of the candidates. There was Edwards on the left end of the promo, flashing a cherubic smile, while Cheney glared sourly from the right end — clearly, some readers concluded, a deliberate twist in using facial expressions to manipulate sympathies.
Turning to the Life & Arts package, readers found another loaded situation: a package headlined “Veep vs. Veep.”
A large illustration combined already-existing stock Knight Ridder caricatures of Edwards and Cheney, both smiling. However, Cheney held a leaky oil barrel under one arm; Edwards was drawn simply as a preppy Mr. Smiley Guy.
Readers felt, and rightfully so, that the illustration demonized Cheney as a big-oil czar but presented Edwards as an innocent pretty boy, ignoring his law career and connections with powerful trial lawyers.
“You should’ve drawn [Edwards] chasing ambulances,” one reader complained.
Not only that, but the first lines in the text of the comparison referred to Cheney as an “oldish 63″ and Edwards as a “youngish 51.” Readers protested the descriptions as ageism.
Angry readers barraged our Customer Service representatives and me, the reader advocate, with phone calls and e-mails that ranged from reasoned chastisement to furious denunciation and a few cancellations of subscriptions to (in those people’s words) a “liberal rag.”
Amidst the reaction, one message carried a disturbing edge because it involved youngsters who had been disappointed by the “veep” package. The message came from a teacher who called from a local high school where she was teaching summer school.
“We’re using the Star-Telegram in class,” she said, “and when I looked at the front page this morning, something seemed wrong. I held it up for the students to see and asked them if they saw anything wrong. Right away, they said the pictures didn’t seem fair, because it looked like ‘Mr. Evil’ and ‘Mr. Good,’ and they said it looked like propaganda.”
That was honest perception, not partisan rhetoric, and it rang true — as did readers’ comments in general.
The promo photographs would have projected at least an attempt to be fair had the candidates’ facial expressions matched, either with smiles or the newsier open-mouthed frowning that’s often captured during speeches and debate.
Meanwhile, the illustration should have connected each candidate — not just one of them — with a high-profile criticism. Such revision was possible. Other options included editing the illustration into simple facial caricatures or using elements from the engaging collection of trivia about both candidates.
Although the “ageism” issue riled some readers, I found nothing bothersome about it. I’m no spring chicken, and I detest ageism, especially in the form of ignorant proverbs such as “You can’t teach old dogs new tricks.” But it’s true that people can be old or young for their age.
So what caused the problems?
Editors felt that the pictures portrayed the public’s prevailing images of each candidate: Edwards as the untested happy guy and Cheney as the tough veteran. That view prevailed despite misgivings among some of the editors who questioned whether the candidates’ different expressions constituted imbalance.
In the features department, editors, who handle thousands of details every week, were so focused on editing the comparison chart to eliminate any hint of bias that they paid scant attention to the illustration. An artist had told them that he had found entertaining artwork featuring Cheney and Edwards. Fine, they said, continuing to examine the chart.
Complicating matters was the end-of-the-week crush in which the features department turns out a number of sections in advance for the upcoming week.
In the midst of deadlines and torrents of copy, the illustration floated past the scrutiny it needed. The imbalance in the artwork was so obvious that any of the editors could have caught it had they given it a hard-enough look.
To staffers’ credit, they accepted Monday’s controversy as an important wakeup call regarding the need to respect and anticipate the public’s firm expectations of fairness.
In a memo to news staff, Executive Editor Jim Witt reminded everyone that our credibility is at stake, and “we have to be very careful during the political season to be as fair and balanced as possible.”
“Although we weren’t intending to show bias in the photos/graphics we chose for Page One and the Life cover on Monday, it certainly came across that way to many of our readers.”
We also need to remember that, rightly or wrongly, the news media are constantly targeted with virulent criticisms these days that, at their worst, have some readers ready to come after us with torches and pitchforks.
At least our guard is back up after a clobbering. As the summer school teacher said after we discussed her class’s concerns, “this has been a great learning experience.”
