...to say the 'I'

« Oh, please, no-- | Main | "The Iraqi people have their country back" »

June 28, 2004

Today's Supreme Court decisions

The Supreme Court handed down two decisions today, one of which regards the case of the enemy combatant status of Yaser Esam Hamdi. The point I wanted to make, though, is not about the actual decision, but about how it's being reported. I'm watching Fox News Channel right now, and they're reporting this decision as a loss for the Bush Administration. But, the front page of the New York Times titles the (Associated Press) story, "Supreme Court Partially Sides With Bush on American Detainee Case".

I haven't read the cases (or even much about them) yet, but I wanted to point out the discrepancy. I have two friends who have just embarked on journalism careers, and they're good and honest. But, girls: I hope you take note of how two different outlets can title the same story so differently.

Posted by Carla at June 28, 2004 10:28 AM

Comments

I've been noticing the same thing so far. It's funny how a pro-Bush news outlet spins this news to make it seem as though the Court dealt a blow to Bush while an relatively anti-Bush paper spins it as a victory for Bush (and a denial of civil rights). I had to read a few articles to get the true picture but it looks as though Bush and his administration won some and lost some. They don't need to charge the suspect, but at the same time, the suspect does have standing and the right to challenge his capture. It's more complicated than either of those headlines suggest, as most SCOTUS cases are. But in the end, it's what sells. FOX News knows it'll get its viewers riled up if it says "Bush loses" and the Times knows it'll get its viewers riled up if it says "Bush wins." What a twisted web of words we journalists view.

Posted by: Ben at June 28, 2004 10:55 AM

Hey Ben, thanks for stopping by!

Knowing you and the others are going out into the world of journalism makes me feel a little more confident--I know that there are at least a few people who are committed to unbiased journalism.

Posted by: Carla at June 28, 2004 01:20 PM

Hey, this is one of those gals who just embarked on a journalism career. The fact that the American press never stops purporting to strive toward objectivity even while well aware that different news outlets have different political leanings is so futile. What sort of objectivity are they trying to reach, exactly? If it's stories consisting of well-supported facts that avoid actual editorializing within the story, that's certainly an attainable goal, but if it's wholly unbiased coverage -- which seems to me the obvious defintition of "objective" -- then it seems that newspapers don't truly strive for that at all -- see headline example above. I know my political bias affects my headline writing.
I spoke to a professor of media studies from Magill last year. She was Canadian but had spent her childhood in Europe, and she pointed out that newspapers there don't pretend to be objective. I thought about my semester in France and how, within the first two weeks of a course on French culture and society, we had learned about the nation's three main newspapers: Libé, which was to the left, Le Figaro, which was to the right, and Le Monde, which was in the middle (but left by American standards). The professor said Europeans would laugh at the notion that any newspaper could be neutral, because they recognize (as we should) that reporters and editors are people, and people are never neutral. So they choose a newspaper that reports the news according to their political views and just go with it.

Posted by: Lillie at June 28, 2004 02:46 PM

> The professor said Europeans would laugh at
> the notion that any newspaper could be neutral,
> because they recognize (as we should) that
> reporters and editors are people, and people are
> never neutral.

Agreed; I don't believe there is a such thing as "unbiased" anything. We are human, and bias is part of the decision-making process. Also, every individual's notion of "truth" is colored by his or her past experiences in life. Lillie, you could probably say much more on this than me (as it is your area of study), but it seems like an unbiased report would have to go into all sides of an issue in excruciating detail and/or read like an academic paper. Unfortunately, such a thing would not be read outside of an academic community; IANAP (I Am Not A Philosopher).

Posted by: cjstevens at June 28, 2004 05:56 PM

Post a comment