And since you brought it up...
In the Comment of the Day, Dwayne N. Zechman expands usefully on the Ethics Alarms post about CNN ignoring the developing story about its own talk show host, Piers Morgan.
So I’ll return the favor and expand on his comment.
For every post on Ethics Alarms regarding unethical journalism or media bias, I could write ten. Believe it or not, I try hard to keep the topic to a minimum number of posts; it is a close second to politics among the daily temptations I have to resist in fulfilling the blog’s mission as a broad and eclectic, rather that narrow, examination of U.S. ethical issues and controversies.
Fresh distortions of the news by the media and its often jaw-dropping deceitfulness in reporting stories create potential topics for me every day, and usually many times a day. Here’s an example from yesterday: I was shocked to find out that the FAA funding, which was held up in limbo while FAA workers missed paychecks, was stuck in the Democratic-controlled Senate, having been duly passed by the Republican-controlled House. The previous day, both President Obama and scores of news stories and TV news features had harshly criticized “Congress” for leaving D.C. for vacations while Federal workers were being stiffed. I assumed, as almost everyone presumed, based on the “hostage” rhetoric being used by pundits and columnists and the just-completed debt-ceiling deal, that it was the GOP-controlled House of Representatives that was causing the problem. And that, unquestionably, is exactly what the White House wanted the public to believe, as well as what the media went out its way to make certain the public did believe, by what its reporters and pundits didn’t report and didn’t clarify.
This was the perfect setting for deceit, and the news media jumped at it. “Congress” encompasses both the House and the U.S. Senate, but it has long doubled as a nickname for the House alone. Members of the Senate are called Senators, but members of the House are called “Congressmen” and “Congresswomen.” When the news refers to “members of Congress,” nobody assumes it is including Senators. The media talks about the “Republican-controlled Congress,” though this is misleading: control of Congress is split between the parties.
Nonetheless, the media, like the President, was perfectly satisfied to fan public anger at the GOP, its Tea Party faction and the House over debt ceiling brinksmanship to create the impression that Republicans were primarily to blame for the FAA not getting its paychecks. That was dishonest–in fact, it was an outright lie—, though I’m sure the President was grateful for the assist. Then, the next day, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid solved the problem, and least temporarily, by getting Senate approval for the House bill. He could have done that a week earlier, too. The Democratically controlled Senate, not the evil, radical, doctrinaire, Republican-controlled House, better known as “Congress,” was the real target of the anger featured in all those interviews with FAA employees wanting to know why they have to invade their savings while “members of Congress” go to the beach. Who knew? Well, the media did. (The President did too.) It just didn’t choose to tell us.
A new book is out by UCLA political-science professor Tim Groseclose, “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.” Groseclose argues that the main way liberal bias infects news coverage is through its choices of what stories to cover and what information in those stories to report. I have only skimmed the book, but that would be consistent with my observations. The professor believes that the effect this persistent bias has on American attitudes and voting patterns is far more insidious than previously thought; if he is right, leftward media bias is more than an ethical breach; it is dangerous and worthy of serious public attention.
Fat chance of that. Only the conservative media is covering the story.
With that excessively long-winded introduction here is Dwayne’s Comment of the Day:
“I’ve long said that there are three forms of bias in the news, and liberal bias is the least of them. This is an example of the second one. (Sadly, I remember years ago when NBC news suffered a huge embarrassment when they neglected to report a negative story about their parent company, G.E. Ah, the good old days!)
Here they are:
1) “HEY!!! OVER HERE!!! LOOK AT ME!!!”, a.k.a. “YOUR CHILDREN WILL DIE within the hour unless you watch our special report at the very end of our newscast!”
2) “I, the journalist, will NEVER EVER EVER do or say anything that might make me look the least bit foolish–which normally means that I will always report a story exactly the same way the rest of the news media is doing. (Or I’ll simply not report it.)”
3) Liberalism > Conservatism every time. “After all, I got into this business because I want to change the world, not just to document it–that would be lame. I’m an activist.”
And there are a couple of sub-forms that crop up:
A) [A combination of #1 and #2] “I know better than you what stories to cover and not to cover, because I know what’s IMPORTANT.”
B) [A variation of #2, often in combination with #3] “If new facts are brought to my attention that contradict a story or cast a story in a different light, I will not report the story differently. I’ll simply downplay (or ignore) those facts or wait until something else comes up that supports the premise of the original story.”
Ethics Alarms 
The reason the Senate was reluctant to pass the House version of the FAA funding was because of two riders inserted into the bill by John Mica (R-FL), one reducing federal subsidies to rural airports in predominantly Democratic states, the other blocking new National Mediation Board rules that would make it easier for workers to organize. These may be partisan issues, but even some Republicans such as Kay Bailey Hutchison agreed these policy issues had no business in the bill without being negotiated. The Senate agreed to pass the bill after receiving assurances that the airports would receive wavers allowing their funding to continue. The union provisions were left out. You can disagree with the outcome, but it seems the refusal of the Senate to act was not arbitrary, but based on policy differences.
I know, but that is irrelevant. The dispute was based on policy differences on all sides. The point is that the Senate was holding up the legislation, and both Obama and the media was blaming CONGRESS for not “getting it done.” Reid and Senate Dems could end the problem all by themselves—the House and the Gop could not. The President’s own party was responsible, and he pointed the finger of blame at the GOP and the House instead, and the media let him do it. That is what happened. Fact.
As is often the case, I left out my most important point. I agree that CNN left out facts and misled the public by leaving out important information. I don’t agree that when someone says, “Congress,” people think they mean the House. I would be interested in how you can back that up (maybe refer to a survey?). Personally, when they say “Congress,” I have difficulty omitting the Senate. Secondly, I found your post just as jaw-droppingly misleading by stating that Harry Reid could have passed the bill a week ago. He thought it deserved negotiation, he got it and made sure it was passed. After reading your post, I was no more informed about the process that occurred than I would have been if I had listened to CNN, just misled down a different path.
I.m not a reporter, and don’t hold myself out as one, Jan.The point is that the House was not holding the FAA hostage. The point is that it was the Senate, controlled by Democrats, that had blocked funding, and the problem was fixed by the Democrats because they were the ones who went home before passing the authorization…not “Congress.”. It’s worse the more I think about it; the President, and the media, “angrily” suggested that “”Congress wasn’t doing its job—meaning Republicans: name me once when Obama has criticized Democrats. Then Reid, who WAS the hold up, got the funding through, and he takes the credit. Look it up. Just because the media won’t do its job doesn’t mean I have to be a political reporter. I’m doing my own job.
Denying that Congress is taken to mean the House is self-deluding. Why are they called “Congressmen”? Why is a House member called “a member of Congress?” Go ahead, Jan—tell me that when you see a campaign poster that says “Miller for Congress” you wonder, “Gee, is Miller running for the House or the Senate?’ Do you, Jan? I doubt it.
Arguing that what is obvious and intentional deceit is not, by using the same device as the deceit, is pretty cynical.
1. Given that the only evidence you have presented is your own opinion that when one refers to “Congress,” one is referring to the House, we can discard that argument. Therefore, when Obama criticizes the “Congress,” he is referring to both houses, which is appropriate.
2. Negotiating, by definition, means two sides of the same question. The FAA decision could not have been made solely by Democrats, because there were policy differences. The hold up was the riders proposed by the Republicans. The Democrats could fold, I suppose, and give the Republicans what they wanted, but the usual procedure is to negotiate riders, which was pointed out even by Republicans. That’s what happened.
3. Everyone went home, not just the Democrats. You have no facts to back up your statements, just opinions. Most people believe “Congress” refers to the House. Prove it. Your saying it doesn’t make it so. Reid was the holdup because he was standing up for Democratic Party principles: maintain rural airports and facilitate union representation. You can disagree with those views but you can also argue that he was representing the core values of constituents.
This is an argument based on opinion, not fact. I am willing to admit I am biased. I want strong unions, I would rather we supported rural airports than build coal-fired power plants or paid for natural gas fracking or started a war with Iran. You have no facts to back up your arguments. Obama is absolutely right: “Congress” is to blame for the FAA shut down. Both houses. One house had an opinion I disagreed with, and the other had an opinion I agreed with. They negotiated a settlement, which is the way it is supposed to work.
But you are right, 90% of the people in the US do not have the slightest idea how it went down, and they won’t find out from the media.
1. This is thoroughly dishonest, Jan. I don’t have the time or the resources to prove something that everyone knows with a formal survey, but I do hold a degree in American Government, do live in Washington DC, and do have a pretty good idea what “Congress” means to me and others who spend time writing and thinking about it. You haven’t addressed any of my questions, because they disprove your disingenuous argument. I just googled “Republican majority in Congress” and there were 19.5 million results. What does that refer to? On the GOP Website, it is headlined “GOP.gov – The Website of the Republican Majority in Congress.” What does THAT mean to you? Don’t call an informed observation–and accurate and fair one, just ‘an opinion” because you don’t like its implications. I resent it, and it is an illegitimate argument tactic.
2. I knew someone would make your “point”, and I’m sorry it was you. At the time the President and the media was using the poor FAA employees’ plight to press its “narrative” that the GOP Congress were unfeeling bullies, the Senate, not the House, had the power to pass the legislation. The ball was in their court. Yes, the House version may have been less than fair or even completely wrong, but that’s irrelevant…the ball was in the Senate’s court, not the House’s, because the House had passed its version of the bill. If the Senate goes home, there is no reason for the House to stay. If the HOUSE goes home, Reid’s majority can still pass the legislation.THE.MEDIA.REPORTS.DIDN’T. SAY. THAT. Got it?
3. Obama was not criticizing his party, and if you don’t know it, you should. He was criticizing “Congress,” using an ambiguous term that he knew he could confuse the electorate with, and have plausible deniability later.
4. You may be, I am NOT biased on this issue. I don’t care about the bill at all, and have no idea which party was “right” or which party was at fault. My field is ethics, and I know a lie when I see one. And that’s what I said.
Jan:
What a colossal waste of time arguing the definition of “Congress” vs
“House” and “Senate.” I had to laugh out loud when after about 2,000 words of definition rhetoric, you say, “But you are right, 90% of the people in the US do not have the slightest idea how it went down, and they won’t find out from the media.” Just hilarious.
I admit that I’m disappointed that my Beavis and Butthead riff from yesterday didn’t make Comment of the Day, but I’ll take what I can get. 😉
Thanks.
–Dwayne
The Obama Administration and Democrats misleading the public by lies and deceit? What a surprise! This has been their M.O. since Obama’s election; it has only increased logarithmically since the mid-term elections and they actually have opposition in the House and Senate.
Obama is on the run for 2012, he knows it, and his “honest and transparent” administration never really existed; and CNN, MSNBC, and most of the print media have been complicit in it all.
The Senate DID pass the bill, after negotiations (which are usually standard procedure in these cases). Harry Reid did his job by protecting his Democratic constituents. I could make the biased argument that the evil Republicans added the riders to the bill purposely to delay its passage. But I won’t.
I could find just as many examples of the term “Congress” referring to both houses. It’s a subjective argument and undermines the entire premise. Obama used the term appropriately in criticizing “Congress” for not passing the bill. Both houses played a role in its delay.
Once again, I agree that CNN was negligent in their reporting of the issue, but not deceptive. MSNBC, FOX, and just about every other news outlet commits the same offense, as you often rightly point out. If you hadn’t brought it up, I would not have learned the details myself. My definition of “Congress” has not changed; I always knew it referred to both houses. But I learned a lot about the FAA funding bill. So thanks!
Congress means House and Senate to me.
Clearly, it means both: just House, or “House and Senate.” That’s why its ambiguous. That’s why people who want others to mistake what is meant use it. That’s what deceit is. I checked the Washington Post and the Times yesterday, and found both meanings used multiple times, all clear because of context.
Color me unhappy this am when NPR also called it “Congressional inaction” instead of Senate inaction. Because as you point out, the HOUSE, which is usually pigheaded and refuses to compromise, wasn’t the reason people got furloughed this time. Argh.