As much as I dislike labels, particularly those sloppily applied, we all use them at one time or another as a way of identifying people and organizations.
Some labels are complimentary, some neutral and some imply negative traits. When a politician calls a journalist a “pointy-headed pencil-pusher” you can safely assume it is not meant as a compliment.
Laurel W. Ames, of South Lake Tahoe, challenged The Bee’s editors for the use of the term “left-leaning” to describe the California Budget Project organization in a recent state budget story.
“Twice recently the Bee has characterized the California Budget Project as ‘left-leaning.’ In the context of the state budget,” she wrote, “I am interested to know what budget positions the BudgetProject takes that are left-leaning? And what does left-leaning mean, anyhow? I have my own suspicion that left-leaning means caring more about people than things, as opposed to those who care more about infrastructure than social safety nets, but that could be my bias and not the correct definition in terms of budgets.”
Ames also said: “Since it seems that a number of your letter writers are convinced that The Bee is not only leaning left, it has fallen right off the cliff, perhaps an explication of the term itself would be helpful to all of us.”
Ames raised a legitimate question, and The Bee’s Capitol Bureau chief, Amy Chance, provided an answer.
“The California Budget Project is an advocacy group that describes itself as working ‘to improve public policies affecting the economic and social wellbeing of low- and middle-income Californians.’ In short, they have an agenda, in the same way that an antitax group might have a conservative or right-leaning agenda.
“We used the term,” Chance said, “to distinguish the budget project from, say, Liz Hill, who as legislative analyst is widely acknowledged at the Capitol as an independent budget analyst who leans neither right nor left — looking at the numbers without seeking to push for a specific policy or point of view.”
“I think we owe our readers such clues to an organization’s goals,” Chance said. “If we don’t provide them, we could leave readers with the impression that such groups are more neutral than they are.”
Using labels or descriptive terms creates problems for newspapers, and opportunities for critics from all sides of the political spectrum.
Senate Minority Leader Jim Brulte recently spoke to a group of California publishers about Democratic Party budget proposals. With a constant smile he used the label “my liberal friends” dozens of times while attacking Democrats with zeal. That’s much more sophisticated than cruder politicians who rail against “liberal do-gooders” or “conservative right-wingers,” but the label helped make his political point.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi became a target in national commercials that label her a “San Francisco liberal.” Pelosi, who certainly is liberal and from San Francisco, tries to avoid that label and make it clear she “respects all points of view.”
So, what’s a poor newspaper to do with all these people pulling and tugging from all sides for the adoption of new meanings for old language?
* Apply reasonable standards for language terms and labels.
* Avoid loaded language promoted by advocates.
* Explain what the terms actually mean, or how they are intended.
* And use common sense and an independent journalistic assessment when applying language in sensitive situations.
It’s OK that some readers identify The Bee as a “liberal newspaper,” even though I think that is an inadequate label. This paper has a history of taking progressive and liberal positions on the editorial pages for more than a century. It also supports the death penalty.
Some readers see all media in simplistic terms, like those letter-writers who believe the paper has fallen “right off the cliff,” and others who feel “ultra-liberal” is too.
A swing to the right?
This past week several readers were unhappy that The Bee, and other independent news organizations, reported that “tens of thousands” of demonstrators turned out to protest the push toward war with Iraq.
“I was truly appalled at your lack of service to your public in regards to your ‘news coverage’ of the monumental anti-war march,” wrote Eleanore MacDonald from Penn Valley. She suspected the newspaper was “beholden to some higher-up.” She saw at least 200,000 people present, she claimed.
“The Bee sickens me,” she said.
The day of the march, police estimated 50,000 people showed up, a number they increased to between 100,000 and 125,000 later in the week, as reported in Wednesday’s newspaper.
The fact that the protests story and photos dominated the newspaper Sunday did not alleviate the suspicion that there was a government/media plot to minimize the impact.
One reader saw something different in the same story. “…We saw one particular viewpoint parroted … and this is why you all at The Bee are so often tagged as left wingers….”
Officials and newspapers are not great at precisely estimating crowds. But given the choices, they seem better at it than advocates of either side in a dispute.
Get it right: Anna Buchmann is the chief of the news copy desk at The Bee. Her name should have been spelled correctly in this column last week, but wasn’t. That was my responsibility, and I pledge to do better in the future.
