Partisanship in News Articles

Re: Partisanship of the news media

It can be difficult to keep one's biases from influencing one's written work. An opinion article by James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal discussing the recent hacking of a university scientist's global-warming related emails referenced one possible case of bias in the New York Times article "New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step." Says Taranto:

"Consider the first three paragraphs of a New York Times article about economists' views of President Obama's so-called stimulus:

Now that unemployment has topped 10 percent, some liberal-leaning economists see confirmation of their warnings that the $787 billion stimulus package President Obama signed into law last February was way too small. The economy needs a second big infusion, they say.

No, some conservative-leaning economists counter, we were right: The package has been wasteful, ineffectual and even harmful to the extent that it adds to the nation's debt and crowds out private-sector borrowing.

These long-running arguments have flared now that the White House and Congressional leaders are talking about a new "jobs bill." But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.

So there's one group of economists that thinks the stimulus was insufficient, another that thinks it was harmful, and a third that thinks it was both beneficial and sufficient. This is not normally what one would describe as a consensus.

But then, if you read that third paragraph carefully, you'll see that the Times is claiming a consensus only in the third group, i.e., "more dispassionate analysts," which seems to be defined as those who think the stimulus is working. It's a consensus by tautology!"

Of course, Taranto himself neglects to mention that the

Times article later clarifies that the word consensus is

used not merely for ideological reasons, but because "a broad range of economists" believe the stimulus bill to be effective. Partisanship seems to cut both ways.