Bias in Translation

Voice of propaganda or voice of America

2007-10-17T18:42:00.000-07:00

One of our exciting tours in Washington D.C. was to the Voice of America. Interestingly, not many of us were aware that there was such a broadcasting organization that is funded by our government and is not allowed to be broadcast in the United States.

WHAT?

Yeah, I know - surprising! It's rather intriguing when you discover the facts about Voice of America. This "multimedia international broadcasting" (not company - nor network - nor cable station or news station) service (for a more politically correct term) is a news gathering and distributing 'service' that is "funded by the U.S. government through the Broadcasting Board of Governors."

It was incredible to learn that the budget of VOA for the year of 2006 was $166 million. Oh, and did I mention that it is funded by our government?

Is that a problem?

I don't know... is it? A broadcasting (not company or Public Access station), but a multimedia entity, which functions as a "typical network station," is a widely known gem in other countries, yet not in ours. I do find it difficult to digest that VOA is able to broadcast programs outside our country, but not within our country.

I understand that VOA was (and is) set up to be an "international broadcasting service" that is aimed to educate and inform other countries. According to the VOA Charter:

1. VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.
2. VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.
3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.

The concerns and debates of the VOA could be based from its origination; this entity was birthed out of the Office of War Information in 1942, which could easily be mistaken for a "government-industry corporation."

I'm sure VOA presents a lot of programs that could be informative; however, the detriment could also be that there is a hidden agenda or a hidden strategy - - more like a subtle bias. My concern is if my tax dollars are donating to a particular propaganda or is my tax dollars contributing to a particular bias?

The agenda of bias

2007-10-08T21:32:00.000-07:00

The other day I did a blog for my Media Effects class on agenda setting, which caused me to realize (and pardon the cynicism) that almost everything and everyone has an agenda attached to it.

This is becoming more predominantly transparent to me. Case and point, One of the books for this class is Bernard Goldberg's Bias. In his book, he claims that the "elite media" is liberal and bias in the way it reports the news. On Golberg's Web page, he informs you that he is a guest (almost) every Thursday on the Bill O'Reilly show.

I know I know - you don't have to say the H word (hypocrite). But, I use Goldberg as a prime example that (almost) everyone is driven by an agenda. Interestingly, Goldberg wrote an op-piece in the Wall Street Journal (1996) announcing his "profound revelation" of the liberal bias in the media. What's amazing to me (and a lot of folks I know) is that Goldberg is working with one of the MOST bias organizations in the media today: Fox Cable News, which makes me wonder, "When is Mr. Goldberg going to write his book on the 'Conservative Bias' in the news?

If Mr. Goldberg is as concern as he claims that bias is affecting the media landscape; then I have two questions for him, "Why is he contributing to another bias and propaganda machine (pardon me I mean network) and why hasn't he rushed to produce his next book about the other bias that is "screwing up America (conservative bias)?"

Actually, I really don't need Mr. Goldberg to answer the questions I already know. Goldberg reflects his own words; he is as guilty as his counterparts and colleagues. Goldberg himself is an agenda setter of his own bias claims. Goldberg operates in his own selective sound bites and filters his own agenda. He has become what he claims others to be.

Maybe Goldberg's next book should be his own confessional, "I've become the number one person that is screwing up America: crazies to the left of me and wimps to the right and I've become both of them."

The picture with many voices

2007-09-15T21:55:00.000-07:00

Lately I’ve been noticing bias in the most obvious places: Pictures in the newspapers and pictures in the magazines.

The other day I picked up a Newsweek magazine while I was at my dentists office. I took notice at the magazine because it had Barack Obama on the cover. The article’s caption read something like this, “What it’s like to be black and white in America.”

The article also focused on the possibility of Obama winning a large majority of the black votes (it seemed like Newsweek was trying to give the opinion that Obama was courting black votes).

What I found incredibly amusing was the pictures inserted within the story. The picture that grabbed my attention (which I’m sure was the intent of the photography editor) was a picture of Obama surrounded by his security detail. The photographer made sure to get “a picture” that had all black security agents.

The reason I make this speculation is because in other pictures from different angles you can see that Obama had several white men that were part of his security detail.

As I turned the page, I noticed a picture of Obama’s wife, Michelle surrounded by an all black detail. Further in the, I see another picture of the audience – that’s right, a picture of three black women and one white.

Pictures are a definite source of perception. They help create and establish an opinion, a conclusion or a perception.

The place I see this occur the most is in Entertainment magazines. Just today I was in the grocery store and noticed a magazine that said “the skinny on the stars.” It had Angelina Jolie and several other stars that the magazine thinks are too skinny; however, it was quite obvious that Photoshop was part of the photo making process.

In my latest bias- translation search, I’ve noticed that structural bias is not only found in the words of news reporters on print or broadcasting, but it’s found in the pictures photojournalist take as well. Pictures speak a thousand words.

Bias with a cause

2007-09-08T20:13:00.000-07:00

Oh no she didn’t… oh yeah I did. I did just say that - - “bias with a cause.” For many of my class mates, you may be too young to remember James Dean. He was a huge pop icon in the mid 50s, one of his most popular movies was “A Rebel Without a Cause.”

Dean is not a source for my blog, but he was a "cause" of inspiration for my title.

In Thursday’s class, one of our classmates offered a very insightful thought towards our class discussion about bias. She said that “bias can be in the eye of the beholder,” which makes more sense than arguing that there is a liberal bias or a conservative bias in the media.

I left Thursday's class pondering this discerning assessment; “bias is in the eye of the beholder.”

In my “non-scholar” analytical mind, I began to evaluate and examine why certain organizations or group of individuals cry bias in the media. My "non-credential" conclusion is that bias is NOT as much based on perception as it is on issue or topic (maybe that could be a new one for the list – topical bias).

Abortion is a perfect example. It’s a very controversial issue; yet, people have various opinions on the subject. I understand that right off the bat many individuals will say, “It’s murdering innocent lives.” Well, many people will argue that war always claims the innocent lives of mothers and children; they are called casualties of war (murder is murder).

Okay, so others will say that is not a valid argument. Well what about capital punishment. It would not only be hypocritical but contradictory to believe in one and not the other. Nowhere in the bible does it say that if you commit murder you should be murdered.

Not to create a debate within a debate, it’s just important to know that all issues have more than one side (and I’m not claiming a pro choice or a pro life stance). Actually, I have a very impartial stance on the issue. On one side, I can see why a woman says it is her choice and on the other side I understand a Christian’s view that it is murder.

Yet, my point is that when the media covers a pro-choice rally, they are immediately coined “the liberal media.” But if the media only covered a pro-life rally, than they would be claimed to have a "conservative bias."

Here’s the interesting dichotomy of bias claims; when any organization or group of individuals claims that the media is bias, normally it’s to promote their own cause or agenda: Liberal
or Conservative. The catholic clergy and priest are prime examples of that (bias with a cause).

“Bias is in the eye of the beholder.”

As a student of critical thinking, I've become challenged to behold both the conservative and liberal views. And as an aspiring professional of media content, I understand the importance to present both sides equally; however, for my personal life the choice is mine without a cause or a bias.

(The links for this blog are the highlighted words - The title also has a link connected to it)

Reporting 101

2007-09-01T19:15:00.000-07:00

Last week on Fox News Sunday, Mike Wallace claimed that Bill Moyers' essay “The Rove Legacy” lacked some fact checking on Rove’s religious beliefs. Wallace also suggested that Moyers essay was absent of some good ole “Reporting 101.”

The dispute between Wallace and Moyers is a great example of “red media and blue media.”

Moyers simply placed his voice in his commentary on Rove, which by the way seems what commentary journalism is, isn’t it? A commentator responds to a newsworthy event (Rove’s resignation) and expresses views of his own and others.

Moyers’ stated that reports had circulated on the Internet that Rove confessed his own agnosticism. Moyers also cited Rove as a “skeptic and a secular manipulator” in his weekly journal.

Days after Moyers’ essay, Rove was a special guest on Wallace’s program Fox News Sunday. During the program, Wallace asked Rove his take on Moyers’ claims.

Wallace used Rove’s response that “he reads a devotional every day and that his biggest charitable contribution he ever made was to his church” as support to claim that Moyers needed to get back to “Reporting 101.”

This dispute exposes the great danger and realization of what has happened to our media; it’s become objective to the subjective and subjective to the objective.

Wallace claims that Moyers did not conduct basic “Reporting 101,” which was to simply go to the source (Rove) and ask him if the rumors were true if he was agnostic. So Wallace did go to the source and found out he was a church going man (but wouldn’t a political official that reads a devotional daily be willing to testify under oath to get to the truth?).

Wallace and Moyers are brilliant examples of what is occurring in the media today. The problems that face journalism are not as much bias as it is "linguistically interpretive."

Interestingly Wallace did not take his own advice and do some good ole fashion “Reporting 101,” doesn’t a good reporter give more than one side of his story? Wallace just gave the viewer Rove’s voice. Maybe Mike Wallace should ask his father for some “Reporting 101” advice.