Skip to main content

In today's news CNN carries a report on the Supreme Court Decision on Late Term Abortions.

The story is an opportunity, not to critique the Supreme Court Decision, but to critique reporting. This is just an example, it is a general problem of subjectivity in modern journalism. I picked a CNN story because they are generally considered to be "unbiased" at least by moderates in the political world.

I don't want to comment on the impact this decision is going to have. I am a single 65 year old man, and not likely to become pregnant. I do think the CNN article on the decision needs some discussion though.

The first eight paragraphs, under the headline, "Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure" are excellent reportage. They cover the basic facts, with little or no inflamatory language. They clarify the story, and the position of the two sides of the issue decided, if the rest of the article were less propagan and more enlightenment, I would have no issues with the way CNN presented this important decision by the Supreme Court. It is what comes below the heading "Sole woman on bench reads bitter dissent."

What follows that indicate a bias that should never appear in news reporting. They are inflamatory, and judgmental. They do not represent the tone or quality of the dissent. They are propaganda, designed to sway opinion.

An editor probably wrote that subhead. That is an inflamatory statement.. It emphasizes the gender of the Justice, and makes the contention that the dissent was "bitter."

These are the Bill Mears, the reporter's words, "In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion 'cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.'" Those words justify the headline. They practically require it, so that the reader is notified that the spin is about to begin.

This is what Justice Ginsburg actually, "In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court - and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

That statement, in the opinion of Mr. Mears, is bitter, in my opinion it is is not bitter. Mr Mears, while having every right to an opinion on the tone of the statement has no legitimate reason for including his personal opinion in his report and partial quote of the statement. In fact, by partially quoting the summary, and characterizing it as "bitter," Mr. Mears, and CNN presented a mildly inflamatory slant or spin to the whole of the story. And, adding insult to injury, Mr. Mears elected to replace a dash, with a comma. Ask your English Teacher how that alters the meaning of the words.

Justice Ginsberg did use the word "alarming." Had the reporter and the editor wanted to spice the story up, they could have used the Heading, Sole woman on bench alarmed by the decision" But there is a problem here. True, Justice Ginsburg read out the dissent. True, she is the only woman on the court. The words mislead, the dissent was written by Justice Ginsberg, joined by three other Justices. Justice Ginsburg is the only woman on the Supreme court. The emphasis on her gender is divisive spin. It has no place in a news report.

Then, Mr. Mears could have said, "In a dissent read from the bench, an alarmed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the majority's opinion 'cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.'" Even that change contains bias. It does not quote the sentence or paragraph where the word "alarming" is used. The quote is accurate, but out of context. In the fourth and fifth paragraphs Justice Ginsburg says, "Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices."

Mr. Mears, not here to defend himself, might defend his "judgment" that the dissent was bitter. Dissent against a final decision is bitter by its nature. Is is the last plea for reconsideration. He could, but he would still be inserting his opinion into the report. Justice Ginsburg found the decision "alarming." She never said she was "bitter" about it. Mr. Mears said she was "bitter." How does not say how he came to that conclusion, or even that it is his conclusion.

Mr. Mears ventures even further into the realm of propaganda by inserting this statement, "Doctors call this type of late-term abortion an 'intact dilation and evacuation.' Abortion foes term it a 'partial-birth abortion.'" That is extraneous to the Court's Decision. It did not play a part in the decision, and it is not entirely accurate. Doctors, and pro choice advocates, use the expression "intact dilation and evacuation." The terminology is not exclusive, it is used by professionals and laymen both. The expression, "partial birth abortion" was coined expressly to inflame emotional responses by advocates of a total ban on abortion, and advocates of a ban on late term abortions. Mr. Mears may have inserted the statement, and it is his words, to clarify the issue. If that is the case, the same clarification could have been accomplished more accurately, by simply saying, "The medical term for 'partial birth abortion' is 'intact dilation and extraction.'" That would have removed the "authority" of the un-named doctors who use medical terminology when talking about medical procedures while clarifying the issue for the layman and implying the authority of the dictionary.

Another extraneous quotation of an authority figure is this line penned by Mr. Mears, "President Bush, who signed the law in 2003 and appointed two of the justices who upheld it, said the prohibition 'represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America.'" That insertion merits a whole debate, concerning the "culture of life." It is there to bolster the judgment that some people are bitter about the decision, and in this context implies that dissent against the decision is somehow dissent against life itself. It is a sly piece of propaganda, but propaganda none the less, and has no place in a report on a Supreme Court Decision.

Mr. Mears accurately reports on the cause of the lawsuit with this sentence, "The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a 'health exception' for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions." It is a clarification that needed to be made. Here Mr. Mears not only clarifies the issue, but he accurately states the position of the four dissenting Justices. The Supreme court has repeatedly struck down statutes that do not allow exemptions for the woman's health and safety. In fact, the dissent is broadly based on that series of decisions. It is the fifth paragraph of the dissent in a nutshell.

As I said, my criticism is not aimed at the Decision, or the people who support it, Nor am I arguing for a change in the decision. I am, however asking that news reporting be as unbiased and objective as possible. Debate on any issue is not well served by information that is biased by the filter that it needs to pass through to reach us.

A transcript of the Decision is on the internet at: http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_55069.shtml
The article I have critiqued is at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/
"The essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different." ~Mahatma Gandhi
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

There are some people who will rant and rail about a clear and absolute liberal bias in the media, and some who claim that there is no such thing.

I believe that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere between.

This is a definate example of media bias, however. I'm beginning to wonder if there are any truly objective news sources available anymore?
quote:
Originally posted by Roadscholar:
There are some people who will rant and rail about a clear and absolute liberal bias in the media, and some who claim that there is no such thing.

I believe that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere between.

This is a definate example of media bias, however. I'm beginning to wonder if there are any truly objective news sources available anymore?



None that I've seen lately.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×