March 2, 2005

The Fine Art of Slant

SLANTING THE NEWS IS AN ART; an art learned delicately over many years of careful craftsmanship. And as music is an art defined by the silences between the notes, the art of slanting the news is often defined by knowing what to leave out. Knowing what to leave out is very valuable to "reporters." It shows, to their editors and collegues that they "get" the unwritten rules of shaping and molding the impressions people take away from what seem to be "hard news" stories. If readers take away the "correct" impressions, the reporter can count on his stock and salary rising.

A classic example of the fine art of slanted news is the recent story scribbled by Editor and Publisher's editor, Greg Mitchell. It is a minor masterpiece of sorts and I'm sure Mr. Mitchell can look forward to a lot of invitations to fine parties as a result of it and the others like it he carefully crafts on his little prose bench.

First read the entire article and form an impression from it. Then we'll look at how that impression is created.

One in Four Americans Would Use Nukes Against Terrorists, Gallup Finds
By Greg Mitchell
Published: March 01, 2005 12:00 PM ET

NEW YORK More than one in four Americans would go so far as to utilize nuclear bombs if need be in the fight against terrorism, according to a national survey reported today by The Gallup Organization.

Gallup asked Americans whether they would be willing or not willing "to have the U.S. government do each of the following" and then listed an array of options.

For example, "assassinate known terrorists" drew the support of 65% of all adults. "Torture known terrorists if they know details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S." won the backing of 39%.

Finally, the option of using "nuclear weapons to attack terrorist facilities" drew the support of 27% of adults, with 72% opposing, which would shatter the taboo on using these weapons militarily since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Experts agree that the power of today's weapons, their range of damage and the peril of drifting radioactive fallout far exceeds the bombs used against Japan. That support has declined 7% since 2001, however.

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is the editor of E&P and co-author (with Robert Jay Lifton) of the book "Hiroshima in America."

It seems to me you can come away from this small item (which was widely circulated and commented on from the right and the left yesterday) with the distinct impression that there's a lot of Americans ready to assassinate, torture and nuke our enemies. And in that you would be right. If you lean left, you'll probably feel shocked and upset that insanity is rising. If you lean right, you'll probably be heartened by the fact that sanity is rising.

No matter what you feel, you'll be wrong.

You'll be wrong because what this slanted art work leaves out (except for the parting "escape" statement in the last sentence) is that in ALL THREE "FACTS" reported -- out of four in the survey -- American support has DROPPED since October of 2001.

That's right, fewer Americans in January of 2005 approved of the assassination of terrorists, of foreign leaders who harbor terrorists, of the torture of terrorists, and the nuclear option than in October of 2001.

How do we know this? Well, we went to Mitchell's original source at Gallup's Would Americans Fight Terrorism by Any Means Necessary?, signed up for their free 30 day trial, and took a look at the same data he looked at.

Here's what you see:

Assassination to Combat Terrorism [Terrorists]

Assassination to Combat Terrorism [Heads of Harboring States]

Is Torture Acceptable?

Drop the Bomb?

Looking at those you can readily see where Mr. Mitchell's slight of hand comes in. Simply leave out the comparison that Gallup is at pains to put in and you've got a story of the "Shocking, Simply Shocking" bloodthirsty nature of the American public rather than a story of the decline in blood-lust in America since 9/11.

And you do this as Mitchell has done, deliberately. Otherwise, what sort of story do you have? Man declines to bite dog? George Bush's policies have given us a kinder and gentler nation? Positive news about Bush policies wouldn't play too well with Mitchell's set, would it? Instead, well-trained Jimmy Olsen that he is, Mitchell crafts a classic bit of slanted news. They should teach the Mitchell Slant-by-Omission technique in journalism schools using this as an example.

Oh, but you say, well, perhaps "mistakes were made." Hard to see how since Gallup tells us in its conclusion what conclusions should be drawn:

Bottom Line

The public's support for extreme measures in waging the war on terror has undoubtedly waned with time since Sept. 11, 2001. But with recent events -- namely, Bush's second inauguration and the apparent success of the Iraqi elections -- Americans are more confident now than they have been in recent months about the way things are going in the war on terror and the Bush administration's ability to protect citizens from terrorism. Thus, Americans may now be less likely to believe such severe actions are necessary to prevent terrorism in the United States.

Reading that you might think the headline for an article on this poll would be Public Support for Extreme Measures in War Waning, Gallup Finds rather than the alarmist and false impression given by One in Four Americans Would Use Nukes Against Terrorists, Gallup Finds, but that wouldn't jibe with Mitchell's slant, would it?

Another interesting bit of prose is the interjection of the item concerning what "experts" think -- since no hard news story can possibly have a complete slant given to it without bringing in experts expert in the slant you're promoting.

Experts agree that the power of today's weapons, their range of damage and the peril of drifting radioactive fallout far exceeds the bombs used against Japan.
But just who are these agreeable experts who agree? You are not only not supposed to ask, you are not even supposed to think to ask. You must merely accept that "experts agree." Of course, today's nuclear weapons have all sorts of yields from 'bunker' to 'battlefied' to 'city-killer' -- it's not a one-size fits all Hiroshima world any longer. Nor do all nuclear weapons create huge mutation-inducing continent covering clouds of radioactive fallout. Remember the discussions concerning the neutron bomb?

But still, who could these mysterious agreeing experts be? We don't know, but we might guess from Mitchell's self-puffing bio -- Greg Mitchell is the editor of E&P and co-author (with Robert Jay Lifton) of the book "Hiroshima in America." -- that they might be Greg and Jay over lunch, or maybe, if Jay is out of town, Greg's 'Me, Myself, I.'

Finally there is Mitchell's "escape" statement" mentioned above: "That support has declined 7% since 2001, however." This is a nice touch and, tacked on at the very end with a large sidestep into 'experts agree' just before it, operates nicely as the phrase to point to when and if anybody catches you out by checking your source material. "Hey, I did say 'support has declined.'" For nuking, for torture, for assassination? For all three? Doesn't matter, Mitchell will be able to claim he is off the hook -- crowded magazine, column inches, have to cut somewhere, my editor ate my sourcing....

Mitchell and his ilk still seem to think that they can get away with running these petty little fact scams whenever they like, just like in the "good old days." The difference is that in these "way-new days" almost anybody can, as we liked to say in the good old days of blogs, "fact check their ass."

Posted by Vanderleun at March 2, 2005 11:53 PM
Bookmark and Share

Comments:

HOME

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Thanks for tracking down the original poll. (And extra credit for spanking the Yokels.)

Posted by: sammler at March 3, 2005 8:26 AM

It certainly slanted, not to mention poorly written.

"Utilized" any nukes lately?

Posted by: Old Dad at March 3, 2005 8:53 AM

There are few/none real journalists left...if there ever were any. The best that I can remember was the McNeil/Lehrer newshour of old...although even then Lehrer would let one slip now and then.

Posted by: Barnabus at March 3, 2005 10:41 AM

"And as music is an art defined by the silences between the notes,"

I compose music. Simple or complex. It is very good, and I have never considered the silence between the notes when composing. It is a cliche and quite meaningless. In fact, when you play "legato" there is no silence between the notes.

This is something that a famous guy said for the heckuvit and it sounded profound, but it's not.

As another said, there are only two kinds of music -- good music or bad music. It has nothing to do with silence.

Posted by: mark butterworth at March 3, 2005 2:20 PM

Oh there is always silence between notes. We just can't listen fast enough.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at March 3, 2005 2:27 PM

But I agree that good music and bad music has little to do with silence. Unless it is bad music, in which case silence is profoundly to be wished.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at March 3, 2005 2:29 PM

The funny part is "tracking down the poll" is now a simple matter of going to gallup.com. Which leads one to ask: what are news stories like this for? I've been asking myself that a long time now.

By the way, this phenomenon is hardly unique. News reporters have every incentive to sensationalize with the most scary spin they can.

For example, just ask yourself or any average American this:

1) In the last ten years, has violent crime gone up or down?

2) How about auto fatalities over the last ten years?

3) How about teen pregnancy and STDs?

4) How about drug and alcohol use?

5) As a percentage of the average American's annual income, or wealth, has the national debt gone up or down over the last 50 years?

6) Is church attendance up or down over the last couple of decades?

7) Are casualties in Iraq higher than Vietnam, lower than Vietnam, or about the same as Vietnam?

8) Has the air been growing more polluted or less polluted over the last 10 years? How about over the last 50 years? Or the last 100?

Go on. Take a guess at what the answer to all of those is.

Okay, I'll just tell you:

---

1) Down. Way down.

2) Down.

3) Down. Way down.

4) Down.

5) Down. Way down.

6) Up.

7) Much, much, much lower.

8) Less polluted. Less polluted. Less polluted.

In all these cases, if you go to the news media, you will likely believe that almost all of those (except maybe auto fatalities) have worsened over time. If you go to the original sources where they get their data, however, you will find that they've gotten better over time.

Shaking yourself into that realization takes work, but it's one of the wonderful things blogs can help with.

Because the news media wants to scare you. It's how they make their money.

(I think I'm going to post this on my blog.)

Posted by: Dean Esmay at March 4, 2005 3:20 AM

Factually, the numbers Mitchell quoted matched the survey for 2005 in which 27 % of those surveyed stated as the headline to the article said:

One in Four Americans Would Use Nukes Against Terrorists, Gallup Finds

The first sentence of article states:

“More than one in four Americans would go so far as to utilize nuclear bombs if need be in the fight against terrorism, according to a national survey reported today by The Gallup Organization.“

That matches the data from the charts. There are no lies there. Mitchell didn’t lie. He didn’t slant things.

Where’s the slant ? He didn’t quote the figures from 2001 which were higher ?

Somehow this post falls flat on its face.

Anyone can have an opinion and call another writer slanted but it would help if there were some concrete data to back up those assertions other than wishful thinking.

The Fine Art of Slant----that’s a nice title


Posted by: ellen at March 4, 2005 6:17 PM

If you can't see it you are, "factually," beyond repair.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at March 4, 2005 10:29 PM

There's an additional subtle slant in the survey itself. The first question asks if you would favor assasinating KNOWN terrorists.

But what is a known terrorist? We thought everyone we put in Guantanamo was a know terrorist. Hell, we captured them right on the battle field.

But it turns out we were wrong. We've admited that hundreds of them pose no threat to the United States and have no useful information. Many of them have been released. None of them have been charged with a crime.

But we were wrong again when we released some of them. A few of those released have gone on to take up arms against the West again. They were terrorists after all.

Given the tremendous uncertainty in positively identifying terrorists, a more appropriate question might be:


"Would it be OK for us to assasinate a terrorist even it it turned out we were wrong?"

That might have less blood thristy results

Posted by: anonymous II at March 5, 2005 5:09 PM

Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens.

Posted by: Armaud-Amaury at March 5, 2005 6:30 PM

On top of slanting the poll, Mitchell misinforms us about nukes themselves. What would we do without experts? "Experts agree that the power of today's weapons, their range of damage and the peril of drifting radioactive fallout far exceeds the bombs used against Japan."

Today's nukes are smaller, because of the accuracy of our missiles is such, that we don't need big messy bombs. Second, if Jimmah Carter hadn't stop funding for the neutron bomb, we'd have an even better option, with minimal blast and rapidly dissipating radiation. Of course, Mitchell would oppose that too, no doubt. So, radiation, really isn't the issue, America defending herself is. For the Mitchells of this world, America ought not defend itself.

Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at March 5, 2005 7:15 PM

Anyone notice the words "if the government thought it were necessary", or as Mitchell revised it as "if need be"?

The poll's question makes the respondent aware that this is a no-alternative situation - a sort of doomsday scenario.

What I find shocking is that 3/4 of those asked would oppose, possibly digging their own graves and those of their loved ones.

But there's enough ambiguity here to confuse the average citizen on the street. Stupid polls!

Posted by: Cup Of Joe at March 5, 2005 11:20 PM