What Media Bias?

Huckabee's tax plan raises eyebrows among voters, economists

This is a headline I read on yahoo!'s front page. Better yet, here's the lead:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's plan to eliminate all income taxes and replace them with a flat consumption tax has the support of martial arts guru Chuck Norris but few economic analysts.

----

Now, admittedly, I did not become a journalist, but I do hold a degree from one of the country's top J-schools. I can tell you, without a doubt in my mind, that had I turned in an article that began that way, the word "EDITORIALIZING" would have been written in red ink all over that sentence.

And the "few economic analysts" he mentions? He quoted one analyst and mentioned that the "Bush administration" had some concerns. Apparently in journalist logic, that means that the rest of "the analysts" are opposed, as well. Other than Chuck Norris (who isn't even quoted) and Huckabee himself, no one in the article is quoted offering any support for the plan. Again, my professors would have marked me off for not enough sourcing. "ALWAYS FIND BOTH SIDES TO THE STORY," otherwise you don't have a story.

Would it be so hard to reword, without the leading language?

Huckabee Plan Replaces Income Tax with Consumption Tax

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is proposing a plan to eliminate all income taxes and replace them with a flat consumption tax.

----

I find this insulting, and I don't know why we stand for it.


Comments

Cool Dad said…
When Chuck Norris makes headlines, he doesn't adhere to journalistic logic, he defies it.
Loren Eaton said…
The Wall Street Journal has also been sharpening its axe over Huckabee. When they ran the lead "The religious left finally finds its man" in their Friday edition, I was relieved to see it was on the op-ed page. But still ... c'mon, people! The religious left likes Huckabee about as much as a lingering sinus infection.
Amy said…
I should clarify - I sort of threw that post up without editing well - it's not so much the media's bone with conservatives as it is their unwillingness to allow us to draw our own conclusions by simply presenting the facts. In this example, the reader is led to be skeptical of a creative economic plan because, according to this reporter, it has only the support of a "martial arts guru." Apparently, none of the revered "analysts" were available for comment.
Jim Jordan said…
This is called "drive-by journalism" and when it comes to most articles citing "experts" with little accompanying data, you know you've found an example of it. Take care.
Rebecca said…
I think I must be biased, too, because without reading that article and before coming to your blog I just did tons of research on him and came out with the exact opinions expressed in the article. They didn't have to lead me, I was already there... I just don't get what people see in this guy.

Thanks for clarifying about the media, though... it's not just some conspiracy against the right (have you watched Fox news lately?). I saw World magazine on my parent's table when I was home and was furious to read the headline "The GOP Lineup: What Evangelicals to Choose From" (I paraphrase, as I can't find the cover online.) Since when is it a given that faithful Christians are therefore Republicans?
Amy said…
Well, World Magazine is a "Christian worldview" magazine which, in theory, is allowed to show bias - and I agree they make a lot of wrong assumptions. But part of the problem with this (and so many) article was that there weren't actually "opinions" expressed, other than those of the writer. So sure, a lot of people may agree with him, but he masked his own agenda with words like "experts say" and "few analysts agree," etc.
Amy said…
This comment has been removed by the author.

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel According to Daddy Warbucks

Where is Mister Rogers When You Need Him?

Block the Door