Posted on 07/20/2005 12:36:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Immigration is a line-in-the-sand story topic that tends to raise the emotions of Americans on either side of the issue, particularly in light of 9/11. Consequently, it's imperative that any story on the subject be reported accurately and with balance, lest the readers' representative get calls and e-mails charging bias.
On that note, I've already heard from readers regarding the stories about the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and their plans to send observers to Houston in October to patrol for illegal immigrants. Two specific complaints stand out: The use of the word "militia" in a subhead on a story published Sunday was a mischaracterization of the group, and claims that our stories have been slanted toward opponents of the Minutemen.
We concede that we dropped the ball when a subhead on a July 10 story inaccurately labeled the group as a "militia." I could be wrong, but unless the Minutemen will be packing weapons inside their videotape recorders, they cannot be labeled as "militia."
Copy desk supervisor Larry Lovelace said "militia" should not have been in the subhead. This is only speculation, but perhaps the copy editor who wrote the subhead was confused by a quote from U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. Jackson Lee said in the story that the group may be "acting in an unauthorized way and may be characterized even as a militia . . . "
The inaccuracy of calling the Minutemen group a "militia" points to the importance of headline writing, in which clarity and accuracy are critical.
Readers enter a newspaper page first through the photo and then the headline. Often, readers will only scan the headlines and decks. That's why accuracy is important -- readers who don't read the story will get the wrong impression. An inaccurate headline also can aid and abet readers who keep score for bias, even when none was intended.
Speaking of bias, I received an e-mail from a reader who charged that reporter Ed Hegstrom's July 9 story was our "usual liberal bias" writing that "even though you had quotes from supporters and critics, it was clearly slanted towards criticism of the Minutemen and this Houston project." More specifically, some readers felt that Hegstrom's story did not make a distinction between what Houstonians think about legal immigration vs. illegal immigration.
Hegstrom's Saturday story was local reaction from opponents of the Minutemen's plans. It quoted Bill Parmley, who heads the organization's Texas branch, and a businessman who welcomes the group's effort. That's balance.
Moreover, Parmley announcing the Minutemen's plans to come to Houston in October was the lead of Hegstrom's story a day earlier. That story quoted Parmley and a West University resident who participated in patrols with the Minutemen in Arizona. Of course, both stories quoted opponents of the Minutemen. But that's good journalism, not bias.
I discussed Saturday's story with Hegstrom and he conceded that readers were correct on one score - his story did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Hegstrom said:
I have written in the past, based on a Scripps Howard Poll, that Texans (as opposed to Houstonians) are not really more friendly than people in the rest of the country when it comes to amnesty for illegal immigrants. On deadline for my first story (July 8), I tried calling the pollster with Scripps Howard, but I couldn't get him. No matter, I doubt he has polling specific to Houston, which I think would give different responses than the rest of the state on this question. I also tried (Rice University sociologist Stephen) Klineberg. I reached him after deadline, so I used the best information I could find, which was from the Klineberg's Houston Area Survey. That survey asked people whether they like the diversity caused by immigration, and whether they felt illegal immigrants took jobs." Readers felt this reflected my liberal bias because I was writing about illegal immigrants, but I used polling that asked about immigration in general. They noted that we did not report how Houstonians would respond to the question: "What do you think of illegal immigration?" These readers are wrong about my bias; I used what polling was available. I couldn't find that specific question asked of Houstonians. But in the more general sense, the criticism from readers is correct, in that I was writing about illegal immigrants, and it is not entirely accurate to use polling about attitudes toward immigrants, who could be legal.
Hegstrom added that he tried to make a distinction between what Houstonians think about illegal immigration vs. legal immigration in the latter portion of today's story.
The Chronicle is not in the business of affirming readers' political beliefs whether they are liberal, conservative or moderate. Our responsibility is to report stories as accurately and as balanced as possible. Editor Jeff Cohen's constant mantra to Chronicle editors is to make sure that stories are vetted of any semblance of bias. The reality is, charges of bias from readers are sometimes fair, sometimes not, but always instructive.
Minutemen head clarifies plans - "This thing is just exploding across the country" [LINKS TO OTHERS]
The bias is in the selecton of the story.
Moreover, Parmley announcing the Minutemen's plans to come to Houston in October was the lead of Hegstrom's story a day earlier. That story quoted Parmley and a West University resident who participated in patrols with the Minutemen in Arizona. Of course, both stories quoted opponents of the Minutemen. But that's good journalism, not bias.
That's no proof or indication of the lack of bias. It would depend upon the distribution of either side within the article and the tacit assumptions in the language surrounding any quotes.
I discussed Saturday's story with Hegstrom and he conceded that readers were correct on one score - his story did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.
This is a strong indication of bias. Hegstrom's unconscious assumption that the distinction is unimportant indicates that he believes that the Minutemen are against all immigration. He is wrong.
This pompous ass of an author must think we're such idiots that this report is sufficient to exculpate the reporter and his editors. Horowitz is right; the left has become intellectually lazy.
BUMP!!
LOL. Exactly my thought. Clearly talking down to the newspaper's readers.
ping
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Minutemen Patriots ~ Bump!
I have no doubt that they all hope for trouble on the border.
Who will Washington side with? Mainline Republicans have already denounced the "vigilantes."
The Rats join them and accuse other conservative types of "racism."
(CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A NEW EPITHET! This one is almost fifty years old. Something abusive or contemptuous. No, "bigot" is too old. Xenophobe? Has a nice ring to it and it's pretty new. Ok!)
Well, I sit waiting to join more rallies at the California state capitol building, this time to protest whatever Washington plans to unload on the xenophobic "vigilantes."
No sense writing the Senators we have and my Congressman (Wally Herger) pretty much backs Congressman Tancredo.
What will the future demand, protests should be enough.
But both mainline Republicans and New Democrat Third Way progressives are adamant: There will be free flow of migrants no matter the cost to America. Business and ideology are more important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.