To Mr. Rieckman's credit ...
To his credit Stew Rieckman, executive editor of the Northwestern, is starting to come to terms with the existence, and even the influence, of independent Web sites in Oshkosh.
You may recall that back in February he published a column headlined “Blogs pollute the political process and election discussions in Oshkosh.”
In today’s column he wrote, “Yes, whether I like it or not, chat rooms and community Web sites will be a factor in politics and may even set the agenda.”
Of course he then added this qualifier: “But it will always be the mainstream press that will be the unbiased fact checker.” That’s a good theory, but I’m not sure that all of our local politicos would necessarily describe the Northwestern as unbiased.
Even on the face of things, the claim of being unbiased is hard to support. The paper does endorse candidates, and three of the people who sit on the paper’s editorial board, and presumably decide on those endorsements, also have a role in directing news coverage.
If we look at the record, the news coverage of the mayor’s race in the week before the election certainly tended to support the candidate who also received the paper’s endorsement.
If the paper wishes to be perceived as the “unbiased fact checker” in town, it might want to think about taking steps to remove any suspicion that the news columns and the editorial page are working together to advance the same agenda, or at least the same candidates.
One way to address this issue would be to appoint an ombudsman, an increasingly common step for newspapers to take. According to the Organization of News Ombudsmen, “a news ombudsman receives and investigates complaints from newspaper readers or listeners or viewers of radio and television stations about accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste in news coverage. He or she recommends appropriate remedies or responses to correct or clarify news reports.”
Over at the university the student newspaper took such a step. Other newspapers that have ombudsmen, or equivalent positions, include The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune.
You may recall that back in February he published a column headlined “Blogs pollute the political process and election discussions in Oshkosh.”
In today’s column he wrote, “Yes, whether I like it or not, chat rooms and community Web sites will be a factor in politics and may even set the agenda.”
Of course he then added this qualifier: “But it will always be the mainstream press that will be the unbiased fact checker.” That’s a good theory, but I’m not sure that all of our local politicos would necessarily describe the Northwestern as unbiased.
Even on the face of things, the claim of being unbiased is hard to support. The paper does endorse candidates, and three of the people who sit on the paper’s editorial board, and presumably decide on those endorsements, also have a role in directing news coverage.
If we look at the record, the news coverage of the mayor’s race in the week before the election certainly tended to support the candidate who also received the paper’s endorsement.
If the paper wishes to be perceived as the “unbiased fact checker” in town, it might want to think about taking steps to remove any suspicion that the news columns and the editorial page are working together to advance the same agenda, or at least the same candidates.
One way to address this issue would be to appoint an ombudsman, an increasingly common step for newspapers to take. According to the Organization of News Ombudsmen, “a news ombudsman receives and investigates complaints from newspaper readers or listeners or viewers of radio and television stations about accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste in news coverage. He or she recommends appropriate remedies or responses to correct or clarify news reports.”
Over at the university the student newspaper took such a step. Other newspapers that have ombudsmen, or equivalent positions, include The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune.
15 Comments:
You link to the Northwestern's Esslinger story, but not to the one they ran the next day critizing Castle. To be fair, the Esslinger story was one of those Rieckman mentions the paper had to print because of postings on this and other websites. It wasn't a story, if not for these blogs. You are making Rieckman's point for him.
No, the Esslinger story was NOT one the paper ran because of blog sites. It was run because Jef Hall was relentless in his pursuit of the issue and made it one not just on the blog sites but at a public candidate's debate. Immediately after that the reporter for the Northwestern, Alex Hummel, said he called Stew Rieckman at home and they talked about running the story in a future issue. The rest is pretty much history.
Kudos to Miles Maguire for saying what needed to be said. Stew Rieckman needs to not throw stones because the windows in his glass house are too easy to break.
I'm curious how you know exactly how Alex Hummel spends his time. You must have a perspective that makes you somewhat biased yourself.
I think potentially better than an ombud is what's known as a "news council," a quasi-judicial body of media practitioners and the public at large that hear complaints against newspapers in a public forum. These are not formal, legal proceedings (in Minnesota, a complainant must give up his or her right to sue the newspaper in order to use the news council).
I've been meaning to do more research on news councils for a long time, but just have never had the chance. Apparently it works quite well in Minnesota. Here's a link to the Minnesota News Council:
http://www.news-council.org/about.html
If anyone thought something like this was worth pursuing I would certainly help set up a meeting. --Tony P.
Tony, Miles, could you, and perhaps the other poster, enumerate the claims of bias against the Northwestern for me? I am curious to know specific incidents, since everyone's definition of bias depends on the perspective they are watching from. I've certainly held similar feelings towards the Northwestern in the past.
With respect to the comment about not linking to the story criticizing Castle, I have to say that I don't see how that article was particularly critical. The headline was: "Union-busting charge unsupported." It basically said complaints against Castle were unsubstantiated. Reasonable people could disagree, I suppose, but it seems to me that the article was distinctly unfavorable to Esslinger because it portrayed him as slinging mud that wouldn't stick. If anything the Castle article seems to bolster my original point.
Well, Esslinger WAS slinging mud that wouldn't stick. The Northwestern at least turned the mud-slinging claim into a story to validate Esslinger. It shouldn't have even been a story (neither one should).
I think you could have more effectively made your point of bias if you discussed certain features the Northwestern printed in the weeks leading up to the election, such as their huge story about the successful redevelopment of downtown Oshkosh. I don't think you're giving them enough credit--at least they can subvert their bias like so many other media outlets.
Just to be clear, let me say I wasn't making an argument that the Northwestern is biased. I honestly think the charge of media bias gets thrown around much more often than it is deserved. In the case of the Northwestern, I would leave it to others to advance that particular claim.
My (narrower) point was that if the paper wants to be perceived as an "unbiased fact checker," which I think is an admirable goal, it could take some steps that would make it harder for critics to claim bias.
Well, the Northwestern (like all corporate media) is a business, so it should not surprise anyone that they have a pro-business bias. I don't even think there is necessarily anything wrong with that. Where it becomes a problem are in situations like the following:
*The Northwestern for many years reported the Experimental Aircraft Association attendance as being in the 750,000 range, even though that number on its face is absurd and even though by the mid-1990s some data from the UW-extension became available which allowed for a more accurate count. Today I believe the newspaper uses a more reasonable figure of around 150,000 - 200,000 but they've never (to my knowledge) demanded an accurate count from EAA and I think other papers in the state continue to use the 750,000 number.
Why is this important? First, I think we could all agree that as a simple matter of ethics numbers should be reported as accurately as possible. Second, and more important, the amount of public support Winnebago County and the city of Oshkosh provides EAA (or any organization) must be based on a real assessment of the economic impact and not a fantasy. I believe EAA would continue to get lots of support from our community even if the accurate attendance number were reported, so for the life of me I can't figure out why they don't just provide a more accurate number.
*Another example is the paper's reporting and editorializing about Tax Incremental Financing. If a paper wants to editorialize in favor of TIFs, more power to them, though to compare critics of TIF to Fidel Castro supporters (as the paper once did) is to engage in a kind of red-baiting that has no place in a respectable publication.
The reporting about TIF is simply incomplete. It tends to give too much weight to Department of Community Development data and talking points and not enough to qualified TIF critics like the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, and others.
My point is not that the paper should try harder to say bad things about TIF districts. Rather, they should be working harder to find the truth. Failure to do that results in a situation where someone like Mr. Doig, the Five Rivers Resort President, feels empowered to announce already that his development will not take place without a TIF. Well, if the "but for the existence of the TIF, would the development take place" test means that the developer merely has to announce he's not playing unless he gets his choices of toys, we have big problems. A newspaper interested in being a community leader would demand that there be a rigorous process in place to determine appopriateness of TIF.
Those are just two examples that I am personally interested in. I'd be interested in reading what others perceive to be bias or lack or fairness in the local paper. --Tony
There is no bias about what Alex Hummel did. Comments about his actions are completely factual. You ask how one knows how he spends his time? He was there at a public forum and his comments were heard. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity.
It is really easy to throw around 'media bias' claims and fire people up by attacking the 'corporate media' - but is it really truthfull?
If you look at the paper's stands in November, they split the ticket - endorsing Hintz & Bird (Democrats), Petri and Bush (Republicans).
I think there was similar balance in the local elections.
On base, their endorsements looked pretty fair - that is, I agreed with about half of them.
Not to harp (OK, maybe a little), but Tony Palmeri considers his website and radio show to be 'real' journalism, but did not disclose his own bias (that he gave money to Citizen's for Responsible Government - Esslinger's PAC) until it came out on these websites.
In fact, Palmeri often made a joke that he was biased "because I got 10 signatures for Cheryl Hentz."
Why would he think 10 signatures is a more important thing to tell his audience than actual financial support? Was he being purposely misleading, or did he just forget about that check?
Palmeri promised, after his financial support of Esslinger's slate of candidates thru their PAC, that he would mention it before his radio and TV show. Which he did, once... But he did not mention it before his Castle/Esslinger radio show.
If you look at Palmeri's coverage of the recent election, the bias shines through - he was obviously on a side.
There is not a problem with that, in my opinion - just do not claim, as Palmeri has, to be a journalist.
I think his 'reporting' was much more biased than that of the Northwestern's.
"Immediately after that the reporter for the Northwestern, Alex Hummel, SAID he called Stew Rieckman at home..."
OK. Which is it? Did Alex Hummel SAY, to you, he called Stew at home, or did you witness it?
To the F. Lee Bailey wannabe,
Saying something directly to a person or witnessing it equate to the same thing. Neither is heresay. Go back to law school and study a while longer.
There was and is alot riding on the election and their outcome. Media bias in this area IS real.
One of the writers, states that the Northwesterns' story on downtown redevelopment was an obvious for non-bias votes. I could
not disagree more strongly. This is prime example of bias.
The publisher for the Northwestern was on the committee for downtown development, via invitation from the following groups pushing for such: Oshkosh Foundation, OCDC,and the Chamber of Commerce. The sole purpose for their (Northwestern's) involvement, to print favorable stories about said development to come and dollars to be spent.
I believe the role of the only newspaper in town should be one that informs and investigates and above all reports facts! Let the people decide for themselves what to make of the stated factual information.
If you are looking for human interest stories or fiction there are other outlets, or dedicate a section of the paper to such.
Another example of bias. The Mark Harris story, with regard to his departure from his previous employer. The Northwestern endorses him then does what can only be characterized as "damage control" in this "story?"
They (Northwestern)also regularly delve into character bashing. They are very unprofessional, and make it very personal. Anyone can pick-up the paper and validate this at anytime. Sunday's seem to be the most frequently used day for this onslaught.
We need and deserve other choices in this community. I would far rather have the ability to discuss issues on line with an anonymous, then have one sided, fact lacking politics jammed down my throat every morning with no recourse.
Thank you Miles for giving us this opportunity.
This was sent by e-mail:
Mr. Maguire,
In regards to your recent blog entry, “To Mr. Rieckman's credit ...”, I wanted to say I too have run into similar instances of bias and then a defensive posture by the paper over it’s slanted support for candidates.
Last year after the first debate of the Presidential campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry, which about 75% of the public easily thought that Kerry won, Jeff Bollier ran an article with local youth voters to get their reaction. One reaction was surprising in stark contrast to political reality in my opinion when an alleged Green Party voter watched the debate and decided to vote for Bush rather than Kerry based on their performance.
Now the chances of a Green turning to the right wing, environment attacking, constitution gutting, poverty class punishing George W. Bush over someone slightly to the right of them like John Kerry is slim as all hell. But in Oshkosh in particular it just seems excessively unrealistic where Bob Poeschl and Tony Palmeri have formed about as a strong and set in it’s convictions Green Party as there is anywhere in the country.
One can only say that if you were Green to begin with you were pretty off to the left on the political spectrum here.
Which made me doubt the validity of the article and I wrote a Letter to the Editor claiming that this appeared to be biased spin.
In return I was sent personal attacks from Rieckman and moreso his editorial writer John Archibald. I was very clear in where I was coming from in my political leanings but my issue was that they were trying to claim non-partisanship in an article that clearly had the majority of the people asked stating that Bush won the debate and won it handily enough to sway their vote to him in November.
Oddly enough that would make Oshkosh just about the only location in the country where Bush won overwhelmingly in that debate.
After vehement denials of partisanship in any fashion Mr. Rieckman made himself look utterly ridiculous in how he fawned over President Bush’s visit to Oshkosh. When you read how he drooled all over Bush being here, even welcoming him back anytime and acting as if Bush coming here was some kind of great thing for the city, it was obvious who he was voting for and who the newspaper was pulling for.
And as MOST Gannett papers in the area did, he followed suit and endorsed Bush on behalf of the paper.
Was John Edwards afforded the same kind of slobbering welcome when he visited the Delta Restaurant? Not quite. The paper did however make sure to include quickly how Democrats comprised most of the audience (yet failed to mention the loyalty oaths and Republican screenings required for all Bush events including the one in Oshkosh) and tried to marginalize his visit.
Mr. Rieckman can claim to be non-partisan all he wants but as evidenced when the Gannett papers mostly went all for Bush, these papers are run by one corporate entity who hires editors and writers of a similar mindset. What’s good for their corporate bottom line has deluded what journalism is to many of these media syndicates.
We cannot trust the papers nor the cable news networks for unbiased news coverage anymore especially when they are beholden to a company whose CEOs hold certain political views.
All of that aside, Mr. Rieckman himself has proven in the past to be extremely partisan during campaigns and the newspaper becomes a print copy version of a blog for his political beliefs. The only difference is that The Northwestern charges you for his opinions and obscures the truth about its political leanings. Blogs at the very least are completely up front about such.
Sincerely,
Robert Poole, Jr.
Post a Comment
<< Home