For many years I have been an enthusiastic collector of files off the web, saving them on my local machines. My reason for saving them is simple: web sites go away. Content gets lost. Better to keep your own private archive of web stuff.

Anyway, one thing I ran across back in the late 80’s or early 90’s was this little gem from Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), which has been a stalwart in pointing out media bias and slanted journalism.  I don’t know if this guide is still available out there–I haven’t looked. But I offer it here from my private data stash and something that is just as relevant today as it was when I first encountered it; maybe moreso.

FAIR Media Bias Detector

“Of course, it is possible for any citizen with time to spare, and a canny eye, to work out what is actually going on. But for many there is no time, and the network news is the only news even though it may not be news at all but a series of flashing fictions intended, like the avowed commercials, to keep docile huddled masses, and keep avid for products addled consumers.”

— Gore Vidal

How to detect bias in the media

The “We We” Phenomenon

It’s embarrassing to watch a TV reporter making “we we” on national television.

The “we we” phenomenon belies a cherished myth of U.S. journalists, who in the past have been quick to criticize their Soviet counterparts for speaking on behalf of the state.

U.S. journalists are not supposed to speak for the U.S. government — or so goes the myth. Keep your ears tuned for when TV correspondents and anchors shed their “objective” voice and become advocates for the U.S. government or military.

“We have not completed our tests to modernize our weapons, and if we were to stop testing now, we would be at a distinct disadvantage.”

–Sam Donaldson, defending White House opposition to a proposed US-Soviet nuclear test moratorium

 

“How does this change our strategy? This means we can’t bomb; it means we have to be very careful about the areas we attack, if we do attack.”

–Barbara Walters, anchoring ABC’s Nightline during the Persian Gulf Crisis

Score five points for every instance of a network correspondent speaking for the U.S. government, plus five bonus bonus for every gratuitous use of the words “we” or “our.”

Politically Charged Labels and Loaded Language

In the shorthand of TV news-speak, politically charged labels convey complex images and information, often resulting in distortion, deception or the reinforcement of time-worn prejudices. Here are some examples of “loaded language” heard on the nightly news:

“moderate” (applied to leaders of governments favorable to establishment interests, however undemocratic, e.g. El Salvador’s Cristiani, Saudi Arabia’s Fahd)

“extremists” (applied to groups unfavorable to establishment interests, e.g. West German “Greens” or U.S. environmentalists)

“special interests” (negative label applied to blacks, labor, feminists and seniors, but never to corporate interests) Score five points for every use of loaded language or absurd euphemism.

The Kissinger-Haig Syndrome

Policy critics are often squeezed out of the news entirely, due to journalists’ unhealthy reliance on official sources and experts — many of whose current business activities clearly present a conflict of interest. Henry Kissinger’s business interests in China were rarely disclosed when, posing as an independent foreign policy expert, Kissinger appeared on news programs apologizing for Chinese government atrocities, and urging the Bush administration not to impose sanctions against China.

Score five points for every story quoting present or former government officials without quoting an opposing or challenging view.

“Sources Tell Us”

Broadcasting unchallenged “official” or “expert” information — often without identifying the source behind the story — is one of network news’ most blatant examples of bias. Hoaxes such as the phantom “Libyan hit squads” stalking Reagan and phantom “Soviet MIG jets in Nicaragua” were foisted on the public by reporters citing unnamed “intelligence sources.” Who were the sources? CIA director William Casey and the NSC’s Oliver North — but TV viewers didn’t know that at the time.

Given their overreliance on corporate or government sources, journalists often convey erroneous, misleading or skewed stories that get huge media play — even if they are false.

“Sources tell CBS that the FBI has opened a criminal investigation into financial dealings involving Democratic Rep. William Gray.”

— CBS’s Rita Braver, as Gray sought election as the first Black House Majority Whip.

Braver’s “sources” were wrong. Gray was not the target of the investigation.

“U.S. military sources say they uncovered a stash of cocaine in one of Noriega’s office buildings — 20 kilograms worth $1.2 million in street value.”

–CBS correspondent Leslie Stahl reporting during the Panama invasion.

This “cocaine” later turned out to be tortilla flour.

Score ten points for every story attributed to unidentified official sources.

Bonus Media Bias Points

Score ten extra bonus points for the appearance of Zbigniew Brzezinski, fifteen bonus points for Al Haig, and twenty bonus points for Henry Kissinger.