The conservative media: Telling Stories

This is going to be part one of an ongoing series about trends which lead our media in New Zealand (yes, I’m not just talking about newscorp and “Fox News” ๐Ÿ˜‰ ) towards a more conservative take on events than strictly unbiased reporting1 would demand.

Media bias is a funny thing to talk about: Ask two people about it, and one will tell you that the media’s all repeating conservative spin and that the Herald is the worst of them, actually spinning it for them half of the time, and the other will tell you that the liberal media is out to destroy New Zealand and that only that bastion of journalistic integrity, the Herald, is holding back the invading hordes.

I don’t mean to cudgel the diseased equine2 in quite that manner. Rather, what I want to talk about is trends in reporting that introduce bias. I understand that in theory, the media is a liberal institution. Their model, ideally, is to question everything, to open all lines of communication, and see that The Truth Will Out. I have some sympathy for the notion of liberal media in say, online reporting- scoop is a great example of how media can become a liberal institution, even if it reports in a way that is not biased. But budget cutbacks, the impoverishment and decay of print media, and gradual abandonment and migration of television for on-demand video (both in the form of set-tops like MySky and the upcoming Tivo, and in the form of internet distribution like TVNZ OnDemand, and various foreign sites on either side of the legality border) have aided conservative politics immensely in mainstream news reporting.

Firstly, there is the problem of traditional media that afflicts mainstream newspapers and news programs: Space. There are only so many pages people that are economical to print, or that readers want to sort trough to find stories of interest to them, and only so much time for television footage and presenter comments. To achieve an unbiased story, one needs to tell it from all sides, and in proportion to how well-respected those views are by portions of the community, especially those most qualified to comment. For all but the biggest stories, this means that an attempt at truly comprehensive reporting is abandoned, and maybe at best you get the two biggest competing viewpoints aired- in political terms this usually amounts to the usual dogfight between National and Labour, where hypocrisy is measured in kilostatements, evasiveness in megaunits, and attempted point scoring in words per minute- in other words, about the only time anything substantive gets discussed is when it’s leaked by only one party. The very act of limiting something to the largest views edges out progressive viewpoints, dragging the debate towards the centre, a battleground which favours conservatives because they are highly practiced at preaching to centrists without losing their base.

But sometimes, for minor stories, even cutting down to two viewpoints takes too much space, and the media reacts by going back to a conservative staple: Entrenched, unexplained narratives. We can see this all over political stories- bills get typified by soundbites that put them into a narrative. (“Anti-smacking” was by no means the first) Even personality stories get slotted into narratives: there’s a narrative for victims, (nobody can understand their loss, all alone, so tragic, let’s have a cry. That’s not empathic, news media, that’s giving up.) for “dubious” victims, (it was her fault she was raped, he happened to be a highly attractive rugby player.) for social responsibility, (look what cool things kids these days do!) for social irresponsibility, (look what those bloody kids these days do!) for practically everything. We live in a world where newspaper reporting could almost be written by mail merge, so pervasive are these narratives.

Now, I’ll admit, narratives aren’t always swallowed by the media audience- the line that civil unions were gay marriage dressed up in disguise never caught on, for instance. But the mere fact that we have to fight this spin because of lazy reporting irks- if news media wants so much to retain its audience, it could at least attempt a little rigour. Where do they get these narratives from? Well, that’s where the bias seeps in: People tell them. This means that the news is highly dependent on both the social circles of journalists, (and for journalists writing about positions of power, it’s entirely possible for them to get a little too friendly with the people they cover) and on the self-reporting bias: That is, people are more likely to talk to you if they think you’re less likely to listen to listen to what they say. Hence why half the letters section of any major publication is devoted to various degrees of insanity. ๐Ÿ˜‰

The problem with narratives goes beyond political bias, too: It’s lazy reporting and short-circuits the news media’s role as our social guardian against corruption. You can’t criticise the excesses of the government if you cry wolf at everything they do, nor if you cry sheep when they’re actually acting like wolves- both of which are trends that narratives enforce. It enforces a tendency to drop or minimise important facts that complicate and undermine the narrative- telling the story the way the story is supposed to go becomes important, rather than reporting what actually happened. This leads to our media tending towards a close-mindedness, and that’s a deadly quality in an institution whose job is always to question- almost as bad as the tendency to think you’re always right is for a politician.

1Note: I don’t claim that such a thing as “strictly unbiased reporting” can exist in all media of communication, or even in reporting at all. I’m merely pointing out factors that introduce a conservative bias, not whether a given piece of reporting/paper/show/website manages to be impartial.
2For those opposed to the usage of wild thesauri, I’m talking about beating dead horses.

Vote Yes

For those truckers who don’t follow me on G.Blog, here’s a cross-post:

Just a reminder to everyone who supported Sue Bradford’s Bill to repeal ยง59 of the crimes act and extend full protection from assault to children- there is a referendum coming up that is designed to undermine that decision, even though it passed overwhelmingly and attitudes (not only to abuse of children, but also to physical discipline of children) have already changed dramatically since the implementation of the new law.

There’s a great non-partisan campaign to support the current law on at The site is very rigorous and straightforward in its facts, doesn’t overreach, and has excellent talking points for the current policy and why it needs extra time to be successful. In short, their main thrust accords with the Party’s reasoning for supporting the bill in the first place: It draws a line in the sand and uses that to motivate slow change towards a society where physical discipline is largely abandoned and unnecessary.

If you can get out and help spread the word that people supporting our current, sensible laws regarding assault against children, please do so. Their recommendations for supporting the “Yes” campaign are here1, and you can find resources for grassroots campaigning here.

1 Basically, they recommend writing your local MP and keeping up with news from the campaign.

Speech is action

I’m torn between being sad1 and angry1 about the news I’ve been catching up on since yesterday.

In case anyone thought we needed reminding, the death of one George Tiller, a doctor who performed late-term abortions in cases of clear need, will serve as a tragic marker for the connection between speech and action.

Scott Roeder, the lead suspect, was a fringe follower with links deep into self-described “pro-life” groups. Roeder was present for the acquittal when Tiller was accused of violating state abortion laws. (Tiller was harassed with lawsuits by pro-life groups) He followed websites that tracked Dr. Tiller, listed his home address, place of work, church address, businesses he frequented, and more. He, like many of his friends at his pro-life website, even compared Dr. Tiller to Mengele.

Combine this stalking behaviour with speech from all sorts of prominent anti-abortion campaigners comparing doctors performing abortions not only to murderers, but also to famous genocides, and the outcry from some groups that they don’t condone violence rings hollow- not necessarily because they do condone violence, but because their “strong peaceful protest” has likely enabled not just this killing, but also previous attempts (both successful and not) on the lives of doctors around the U.S.A., and even previous attempts on the life of Doctor Tiller.

Now we see the sad justification for the U.S. government watching for terror threats from extreme right-wing groups. If pro-choice groups attempted to capture and/or enslave men, or rape women with the aim to forcibly impregnate them, we’d be entering the same realm as we have now for conservative anti-abortion groups in the U.S.A. Here’s what the founder of the site Roeder followed had to say on this incident:

George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name: murder.

Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.

If yelling “fire” in a crowded room is incitement to disturbing the peace, what is yelling “genocide!” to an inflamed mob? I wish he had more to be worried about than just his crocodile tears over not being able to use “effective2 rhetoric” against abortion.

Comments like this go beyond the point where anyone can be expected to agree to disagree, as much as I am a fan of that policy. This is advocating domestic terrorism and political violence, and is never appropriate. In an ideal world these groups that advocate extreme violence would be treated like the terrorists they are wherever on the political spectrum they fell, but the political double-standard for American conservatives is apparently still in full force.

Still, at least I can credit the social conservatives in our own fair country with not being murdering crazies3.

1 Read: “crying” and “cursing”. ๐Ÿ˜‰
2 I.e.: dangerous and irresponsible.
3Except of course the “Sensible Sentencing Trust”, who think it is appropriate to murder taggers. Damn. Guess that bit of patriotism backfired ๐Ÿ˜›