Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Discerning Media Bias—or Over-Discerning It?

A mini-storm has erupted in news circles over an item by my colleague Seth Mandel here about Norah O’Donnell of CBS News and whether, in questioning Jay Carney about the debt-ceiling deal, she revealed a bias when she said to him, “We got nothing.” ABC’s Jake Tapper and my friend Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard have both taken us to task for misrepresenting the exchange, because despite some coughing and simultaneous talking by Carney, O’Donnell used the words “Democrats are saying” before she said “we got nothing.” We have amended the item to take account of the attribution.

Seth explains why he believes the item stands in his updated version. As the editor who suggested it and approved it in the first place, I think it’s proper for me to explain why I think it stands as well.

Tapper and Hayes say O’Donnell was taking an adversarial tone, that this is what the White House press corps does, that it was totally appropriate, and that it was “scurrilous” (Tapper’s word) to suggest otherwise. These are reporters I respect and like, and they have a point about style—that baiting is a way of trying to get news out of a flak. But what Seth perceived and what I perceive in O’Donnell’s words (discernible in the 45 seconds before she said the words that we made controversial) is the revelation—through tone and comportment—of her own view. This is something to which I, as a conservative member of the media and watcher of media for three decades now, have long since been hypersensitive. The raised eyebrow, the cynical half-glance, the ironic turn of phrase, some inappropriate anger—these are all behavioral cues that reveal a supposedly objective reporter’s true feelings and in which they unconsciously express their ideological fealties.

Hayes, who is himself a conservative, did not see that in O’Donnell’s questioning. So obviously the opinion is debatable. By definition, the hypersensitive can maybe be oversensitive. And the debate was obviously complicated by the fact that we opened ourselves up to fair criticism in our original item because we did not feature the qualifying quote, which was and is very difficult to hear. It’s up to you to judge whether Seth and I are right that O’Donnell inadvertently added a note of emotional urgency to the point she was making that came out of unguarded personal conviction.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.