Media Bias Illustrated
by Rich Hailey
A ruling by the Supreme Court allows forced medication of criminal defendants in order to make them capable of standing trial. That ruling alone is worthy of commentary (see my page) but what immediately struck me was how two different news organizations spun it. Remember, these are news stories, not commentary, and are supposed to be just the facts.

First let's look at Reuters:

Supreme Court Allows Defendant's Forced Medication
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled on Monday that the government may force defendants to take anti-psychotic medicine to make them competent to stand trial on serious criminal charges, but only under certain limited circumstances.

By a 6-3 vote, the court allowed forced medication if the treatment was medically appropriate, substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the trial's fairness, necessary to further important governmental trial-related interests and less intrusive alternatives were unavailable.

Next, the AP:

High Court Limits Gov't Drugging of Nonviolent Defendants
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court (search) on Monday limited the government's ability to forcibly medicate mentally ill criminal defendants to make them well enough to stand trial for fraud or other nonviolent charges.

The 6-3 ruling, a defeat for prosecutors, means that the government will have to revise a common practice now of putting defendants on anti-psychotic drugs for their trials. Justices said that the Constitution (search) allows the government to administer drugs only "in limited circumstances."

The case required the court to balance the government's interest in punishing nonviolent crime with a person's constitutional right to control his or her body.

The difference is striking. The Reuters story, particularly the headline, implies that the SCOTUS has legitimized the practice of drugging defendants to make them competent to stand trial, while the AP story describes the decision as limiting that practice. Two different takes, 180 degrees apart, originating from the same basic set of facts.

I know, I know; media bias is old news, but the example was too elegant to pass up. It is evident that the philosophical differences between the two news organizations color how they present the story. Does this mean that they have an agenda that they are trying to advance, and that they are deliberately distorting stories to support that agenda?

Nope. Although the possibility exists, there is a simpler explanation to account for the different takes on the story, one which doesn't require wide ranging conspiracies.

I remember that when Walter Cronkite retired, there was a sense of shock when people realized that he was very liberal in his outlook. Cronkite embodied the news profession to millions of people; how could they not know he was liberal? Simple. Cronkite was from the old school of journalism, where reporters removed themselves from the story, and reported the facts. Opinion and commentary were limited to the editorial pages. The advent of television news changed that forever. Suddenly, the reporter wasn't just a byline, he was a real human being. Personality became part of the news, leading inexorably to a relaxation of journalistic standards, blurring the line between reporting and editorializing. To be successful, a reporter had to work in that gray area, reporting the facts, but injecting enough of his personality to connect with the viewers. Inevitably, this led to the assumptions and biases of reporters and editors subconsciously coloring how they choose to tell the story.

This process is inherent in today's news media, and cannot be removed without major changes in the media culture, including removal of the drive for profitable operation of the newsroom. Since that isn't going to happen, news organizations should abandon the pretense of neutrality, striving instead for balance in their coverage.