Tag: CNN

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

A Surplus of Slant

The Washington Post Metro section headline seems to tell a story: “Virginia taxes yield $311 million surplus.”

Odd, though: Virginia’s legislators didn’t raise taxes; they cut spending. The article, thankfully, reveals this, reporting that there was “no general tax increase” and “hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts.” 

But if you just read the headline and moved on, you might have been misled. 

Later that day, CNN charges Congresswoman Michele Bachmann with “again” characterizing “a settlement to black farmers as fraud.” No explanation as to why. Then CNN presents John Boyd (or Dr. John Boyd?), president of the National Black Farmers Association.

Boyd denies all talk of fraud. “I just don’t understand why people like Ms. Bachmann … have continued to criticize this settlement,” he explains, before figuring it might be to “divide and conquer America.”

Rep. Bachmann is shown saying 94,000 people were given settlement money even though the census showed only 18,000 black farmers. But CNN avoids that obvious math problem. CNN also neglects the testimony of Jimmy Dismuke, a black farmer who claims the lawyers told potential plaintiffs that “if you had a potted plant, you can be a farmer.”

Then CNN anchor Kyra Phillips asks, “Do you feel that she’s racist?”

Boyd responds, “She’s going to have a hard time proving to America that she’s not racist if she continues to make these kinds of comments.”

Media folks are going to have trouble proving to America that they don’t slant the news.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

How the Worm Turns

Some folks wait till the last moment to decide how to vote. And when indifference was the mental state right before the decision, we can’t help but wonder what moved the person from indecision to selection. A coin toss?

Or something more insidious? 

This kind of worry lies behind a mini-​controversy over a CNN News feature. For the 2008 presidential campaign CNN gathered 32 undecided voters and gave them knobs to turn as they listened to candidates’ speeches. Turn the knob one way for approval, the opposite for disapproval. A computer averaged out the responses, and graphed them in real time underneath the TV image of the candidate speaking. 

Such graphic elements of newscasts have been called “worms.”

Psychologists have studied this sort of thing, and suspect that the mere presentation of this average approval rating amounts to “spin.”

And, as such, constitutes undue influence of a small group, perhaps easily manipulable, over a large group of voters. 

British psychologists studying CNN-​like worms say they accumulated data of measurable signs of influence. “The responses of a small group of individuals could, via the worm, influence millions of voters,” the scientists write. They also declare this effect “not conducive to a healthy democracy.”

Yes, yes, but “peer pressure” has been a known element of democracy for some time.

Only the worms are new. 

And, in their context, they provide more information. As with speech we may not like, more and different worm varieties (on different networks, perhaps) is undoubtedly the best response.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.