Saturday, March 19, 2005
The Bush Administration Lowers Air Quality Standards / The EPA Raises Air Quality Standards
I recently noticed what may be another “mainstream” media bias technique. Like most media bias, I doubt if it’s deliberate or orchestrated but, on more than a few occasions I’ve seen some patterned variance in who is blamed or credited with popular or unpopular decisions and actions.
When referring to something seen by many as “bad” or controversial, and originating from the executive branch (including cabinet departments and agencies), it will often be described as a decision or act of, “the Bush Administration.” If the policy decision is a generally popular or uncontroversial one, the specific department will be noted free of any reference or relation to, “the Bush Administration.”
Remember, the general heading, “Bush Administration,” includes thousands of people (some making decisions the president may not agree with or even be aware of).
How often, and under what circumstances, is the President’s name associated with a given proposal, decision, or action, and how often are issues depicted in a positive light divorced from association with the president?
I may be nit-picking here but I think this is something worth watching.
*****************
Not The Best Photo -- Out Of Hundreds?
Another interesting phenomenon one may occasionally note in the "non-partisan" media is the choice of photos used in magazines and newspaper articles. Just yesterday I saw a wire service photo of John Bolton -- Bush's nominee for UN Ambassador -- that depicted a very mean and angry man (of course, I'm sure the editor had no such opinion of Bolton -- not a chance). Vice President Cheney is another favorite who manages to always be caught grimacing (odd that when we see him on video tape he just looks like a regular even-mannered guy). Last year, I remember Time or Newsweek had a cover photo of President Bush that was an exaggeration of the concept, "unflattering." Caught in a dumbfounded stare, the photo captured a millisecond of bad portraiture. Of course, those who hate Bush will say that such a pose accurately depicts someone who they see as "stupid." No doubt many an editor in left-land news would feel this way, but I'm not sure that such oddly chosen photo "journalism" is the best that can be done by organizations claiming to be objective and without agenda.
To some, this probably sounds like "more right wing paranoid nit-picking" but everyone knows that these media organizations have literally hundreds of photos of the people they cover. In any given meeting, speech, or public event we know there are at least several photos taken. It seems somewhat suspicious that, out of these many photos, such unflattering ones are regularly chosen to grace the pages of major media institutions.
...of course, on the "liberal" side, there's always Ted Kennedy -- oh wait, that's his real face.
When referring to something seen by many as “bad” or controversial, and originating from the executive branch (including cabinet departments and agencies), it will often be described as a decision or act of, “the Bush Administration.” If the policy decision is a generally popular or uncontroversial one, the specific department will be noted free of any reference or relation to, “the Bush Administration.”
Remember, the general heading, “Bush Administration,” includes thousands of people (some making decisions the president may not agree with or even be aware of).
How often, and under what circumstances, is the President’s name associated with a given proposal, decision, or action, and how often are issues depicted in a positive light divorced from association with the president?
I may be nit-picking here but I think this is something worth watching.
Not The Best Photo -- Out Of Hundreds?
Another interesting phenomenon one may occasionally note in the "non-partisan" media is the choice of photos used in magazines and newspaper articles. Just yesterday I saw a wire service photo of John Bolton -- Bush's nominee for UN Ambassador -- that depicted a very mean and angry man (of course, I'm sure the editor had no such opinion of Bolton -- not a chance). Vice President Cheney is another favorite who manages to always be caught grimacing (odd that when we see him on video tape he just looks like a regular even-mannered guy). Last year, I remember Time or Newsweek had a cover photo of President Bush that was an exaggeration of the concept, "unflattering." Caught in a dumbfounded stare, the photo captured a millisecond of bad portraiture. Of course, those who hate Bush will say that such a pose accurately depicts someone who they see as "stupid." No doubt many an editor in left-land news would feel this way, but I'm not sure that such oddly chosen photo "journalism" is the best that can be done by organizations claiming to be objective and without agenda.
To some, this probably sounds like "more right wing paranoid nit-picking" but everyone knows that these media organizations have literally hundreds of photos of the people they cover. In any given meeting, speech, or public event we know there are at least several photos taken. It seems somewhat suspicious that, out of these many photos, such unflattering ones are regularly chosen to grace the pages of major media institutions.
...of course, on the "liberal" side, there's always Ted Kennedy -- oh wait, that's his real face.
