ID Defender Is Relegated

Bias by placement? Probably… Considering those who dare think Intelligent Design is legitimate are usually castigated for it, I wouldn’t be surprised…

When the trial began in late September, the ACLU went first, bringing their witnesses to the stand. Powell’s articles on those testimonies were placed on page A3 on successive days (September 27-28). Now that the trial has progressed to the point where the respondents, the Dover, Pennsylvania school board, is calling its witnesses, and the story centered on the testimony of an ID defender is placed on page A13.

10 pages later. Now, I understand that the news cycle dictates the placement of the story, but let’s be honest… In the last two weeks, we haven’t exactly seen a rush of news in any area. And it is the Washington Post, which is not a tabloid sized newspaper.

In fact, just for the hell of it, I checked out today’s front page to see what really important stories are there. All of them are relatively timely news stories, except for one on ethnic beauty pageants. Way to hit that hard news, boys! Page appears after the jump if you care.

http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

Bah… they should feel lucky they got coverage at all.
http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

At best, IDC is a philosophical argument. At worst, it’s theological. In no case is it science. The only reason it’s getting air-play is because they’re trying to pass it off as science and teach it in the science classroom. That… and journalists seem to prefer “balance” to actual evidence. Like I said, lucky.
http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

It’s not about the relative merits of the theory or its followers, its about the obvious bias in the coverage of its case. That’s what the post is about.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

Is it bias to be against something that is wrong?
http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

Dude… You’re just not listening here…

Both sides should be given equal coverage if they’re covering a trial. Relegating one side to the 13th page while putting the other on page three on successive days is not fair.

That’s the issue.

Not the people. Not ID.

Get over it already.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

I understand what you’re saying, but I simply don’t agree. The problem is that “balance” and “equal coverage” are bullshit ways for fringe ideas to get mainstream play when they don’t deserve it. The coverage of the IDC side is “relegated” to page 13 because that’s all it’s really worth—even to those attempting to be “fair and balanced” by covering both sides of the trial.
http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

So instead of reporting the story in its entirety, they’re editorializing by placement, and you’re okay with that because you agree with it.

It makes perfect sense.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

I’m okay with it not because I happen to agree with it, but because it’s the way it should be. Gather your facts and report the story. The problem with “balance” is that it always turns into a “he said/she said” pile of garbage, giving equal time to both sides when the facts truly only support one of the sides.

But I suppose that wouldn’t be sensational, now, would it?

Of course, I realize this whole discussion could be moot, as it could have simply been a decision based on reader feedback. Maybe readers are as tired of the story as I am.
Dave

When President Bush was celebrating the start of his second term, it was a big event. It was just like the inauguration celebration for the start of the first term. Thousands of people were involved in the celebration. You would expect something of this caliber to catch major news coverage.

On the same day, there were protesters set up along the parade route. They had an area that was only for them. They did speeches and booed the President on his way by. There were less than a hundred people at this protest. Due to far less people present at the protest, I would call it “fringe” and not worthy of major news coverage.

CSPAN covered the President’s celebration live and all day.

CSPAN 2 covered the protest live and all day.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

CSPAN 2 covered the protest live and all day.

Another instance of “balance” gone wrong.
Dave

I think you missed the point about media bias.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

Balance or bias: How can you tell the difference? It could very well be that their bias bore this idiotic balance routine. Either way it means the same damn thing—obvious wrongs get equal time.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

Bah… they should feel lucky they got coverage at all.
http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

At best, IDC is a philosophical argument. At worst, it’s theological. In no case is it science. The only reason it’s getting air-play is because they’re trying to pass it off as science and teach it in the science classroom. That… and journalists seem to prefer “balance” to actual evidence. Like I said, lucky.
http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

It’s not about the relative merits of the theory or its followers, its about the obvious bias in the coverage of its case. That’s what the post is about.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

Is it bias to be against something that is wrong?
http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

Dude… You’re just not listening here…

Both sides should be given equal coverage if they’re covering a trial. Relegating one side to the 13th page while putting the other on page three on successive days is not fair.

That’s the issue.

Not the people. Not ID.

Get over it already.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

I understand what you’re saying, but I simply don’t agree. The problem is that “balance” and “equal coverage” are bullshit ways for fringe ideas to get mainstream play when they don’t deserve it. The coverage of the IDC side is “relegated” to page 13 because that’s all it’s really worth—even to those attempting to be “fair and balanced” by covering both sides of the trial.
http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

So instead of reporting the story in its entirety, they’re editorializing by placement, and you’re okay with that because you agree with it.

It makes perfect sense.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

I’m okay with it not because I happen to agree with it, but because it’s the way it should be. Gather your facts and report the story. The problem with “balance” is that it always turns into a “he said/she said” pile of garbage, giving equal time to both sides when the facts truly only support one of the sides.

But I suppose that wouldn’t be sensational, now, would it?

Of course, I realize this whole discussion could be moot, as it could have simply been a decision based on reader feedback. Maybe readers are as tired of the story as I am.
Dave

When President Bush was celebrating the start of his second term, it was a big event. It was just like the inauguration celebration for the start of the first term. Thousands of people were involved in the celebration. You would expect something of this caliber to catch major news coverage.

On the same day, there were protesters set up along the parade route. They had an area that was only for them. They did speeches and booed the President on his way by. There were less than a hundred people at this protest. Due to far less people present at the protest, I would call it “fringe” and not worthy of major news coverage.

CSPAN covered the President’s celebration live and all day.

CSPAN 2 covered the protest live and all day.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

CSPAN 2 covered the protest live and all day.

Another instance of “balance” gone wrong.
Dave

I think you missed the point about media bias.
http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

Balance or bias: How can you tell the difference? It could very well be that their bias bore this idiotic balance routine. Either way it means the same damn thing—obvious wrongs get equal time.

Seek

Links

Disclaimer

Meta