Here’s an email I received today:
I noticed in today’s Winston-Salem Journal that you showed a photo of President Bush above the quote from his speech about the death of al-Zarqawi that was out of context to the quote. I watched the speech and the President’s face was very somber, not smiling, as in the photo you showed. I am appalled that the lack of unbiased reporting should be so obvious. While your newspaper has a reputation for being very liberal and anti-Republican and anti current administration, I hope you understand that not everyone is of the same persuasion. I thought our President was very respectful in his wording and demeanor during his speech and I do not appreciate your trying to sway the image to suit your political beliefs.
The writer is correct. The mugshot we used of the president is from a later event in the day, when he was talking to the Chilean president. So he wasn’t somber all day. Politics aside, I don’t believe there is anything unethical about using a small photo in this manner. It’s more for illustrative and design purposes than anything else. If we showed him in a golf shirt, or he was laughing out loud, that might be a different matter.
As I discussed yesterday, the al-Zarqawi story was a chance to figure out how to display and present an important story that broke at a very non-competitive time for the print version of newspapers.
The Newseum is an interesting site that collects newspaper front pages. You can see how newspapers across the country covered this event—or ignored it as the case may be.
Separately, I hope you all had a chance to read our story on the Brown Mountain Lights today. Good piece. Great photo. There are a lot of special places in North Carolina. Wiseman’s View above the Linville Gorge is near the top of my list.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
You have e-mail? Coulda fooled me!
What left wing bias? Unlike some of the so-called fair and balanced media who artfully try to endow an unenlightened and unsuccessful president with the gravitas he lacks, I think the Journal is more than fair in reporting national news. I hope the Journal will not take the bait (to tilt to right) to accommodate the prejudices of the kool-aid crowd.
1) There’s an old saying in newspapers that goes something like: If you’re making both sides mad, you must be doing something right. As I’ve gotten older—if not wiser—I’ve come to doubt that adage. Too often it seems to me that it really means we are doing things wrong in two instances. We take bias seriously. But it’s hard to stamp out, particularly because it’s as much a function of the lens as it is the object in question. Perception becomes reality.
2) I do have email. And all sorts of things—from hoodia ads to deconstructions of Journal coverage—land in my inbox. Like everything else, I sort, respond and toss, depending on the item in hand.
Those who accuse the Journal of liberal bias might consider that the Journal has not endorsed a Democrat for President in at least 37 years.
When the Journal publishes something the reader does not like, there are at least three possibilities:
1. The paper is biased.
2. The writer is mistaken.
3. The story is accurate.
There are probably some other possibilities, but those three cover a lot of territory. I believe the last Democrat we endorsed for president was LBJ in 1964. This includes both Bushes for four elections.
It’s also important to note that editorials and news coverage are separate entities at our paper and most papers. It’s hard for some folks to get their heads around the idea that our editorial page has no control over the news pages and vice versa, but that’s the way it works.
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.