Percepton=Reality

Where has Doug Grow been?

The only reason I ask is because the Strib columnist would seem to have been hiding under a barrel of ink.

Today's column could only have been written by a man who doesn't get out much, perceptually-speaking.public perceptions.

Among the first things journalists are taught is that we should not wear our personal beliefs on our soiled sleeves.

It's OK to vote, for example. But it's not OK to make political contributions.

Clearly, this is all about perception. Journalists want to be seen as objective (or at least fair), even though once we leave our cubicles we're as full of personal beliefs and biases as anyone else.

And yet at no time since before World War One have journalists been seen as less fair. Why is that?

In the name of full disclosure, I confess that I don't live a life of objective neutrality. I'm a Twins fan. A union member. A former PTA member. A current AARP member. A lifelong Christian -- though I don't know if my beliefs would pass muster these days among many of the more, umm, enthusiastic wings of the faith. Though often accused of tilting left, I once even participated in a Republican caucus. (It was a long time ago.)

Right. Back when the GOP and the DFL were more or less the same thing.

It's true - journalists have personal beliefs. So why is it that the media is seen by so many people - including some of its' own more responsible practicioners - as biased and unfair these days?

Grow confesses; the Strib's newsroom is in a quandary:

All of this disclaiming leads me to a discomfort some of us in the Star Tribune newsroom are feeling these days.

Our company is a corporate sponsor of a major evangelistic Christian traveling show being held on the State Capitol grounds this weekend...Organizers are expecting anywhere from 150,000 to 250,000 people to participate in the event, which has been embraced by Gov. Tim Pawlenty and his wife, Mary...Why isn't the newspaper simply reporting on this big cultural event, especially at a time in our history when religion and politics have formed such an unholy alliance?

Good question.

One could ask that about a lot of media ventures lately; Viacom-owned CBS spending hours of network and local broadcast time plugging books by Bill Clinton and Richard Wright, for example, turning their networks into infomercials for their favored political goals, without an iota of ingenuous reporting; the Strib's unconditional support of gun control and disingenuous acceptance of myth over fact over the ten years of the concealed carry debate; their continual support of publicly-subsidized stadiums, and more.

All of these are things they could ask about, but largely don't. No, they wait until an evangelist wants to use the Capitol grounds, and their newspaper decides to take some cheap ad space.

We'll get to that in a bit:

Sponsorship seems to create a fundamental conflict of interest, as noted by a number of people who have written, called and sent e-mails to the Star Tribune.

In a letter to the editor published Wednesday, Marc Kermisch summed up the concerns of many.

"With the event taking place on the grounds of the Capitol, it appears that the state is endorsing Christianity as the religion of choice. ... The support of the Star Tribune carries this message even further, leading me to believe that the Star Tribune has a strong bias toward Christians and is not able to report in a fair and balanced way on stories that involve religion."

Grow has seized on a letter by a writer - a writer I'd suspect is an absolutist about religion. One wonders how that perception would be seen by a representative sample of Strib readers. Grow notes elsewhere in the article that the Strib also covers the Gay Pride parade and the Basilica Block Party - but the paper's reporting on Gay rights and the renovation of the Basilica have benever been questioned, have they?

Grow quotes a Strib suit:

Sponsorship does not mean endorsement," Taylor said. "Newsroom editors and staff members are not involved in making sponsorship decisions."

But again, this comes down to perception -- and faith.

Readers must have faith that there's a difference between sponsorship and endorsement.

And I suspect the Strib's circulation woes - like those of most major newspapers - are a symptom of a lack of faith in the paper's ability to separate itself...

...not from religion, but from politics.

This tension between the corporate side of the news business and the newsroom side has always existed. It probably reached a peak in the Twin Cities during the civic debate over whether the area's first domed stadium should be built.

The publisher of the newspaper at the time was a leading Dome promoter. The efforts of the corporation, the Star and Tribune Co. at the time (owned by the Cowles family), created so much newsroom anxiety that in 1979, 45 normally tight-with-a-buck reporters and editors for the Minneapolis Tribune purchased an ad proclaiming their independence from the corporate position.

Today's journalists are a little more frugal -- but just as concerned about public perceptions.

So why are they continually misjudging them so badly?

The sponsorship of some evangelist festival gets Doug Grow exercises, but his paper's continual, inflammatory, defamatory treatment of conservatives and their causes never rates a mention?

Posted by Mitch at August 5, 2004 06:56 AM | TrackBack