Michael Rubin thinks it's time for a "passive voice watch";
A writer with whom I spoke about two weeks ago pointed out a very interesting trend in the press reporting and political commentary about the war on terrorism. All too often, reporters and politicians use the passive voice. Take British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett in yesterday’s USA Today: “"It's widely argued now that the existence of the camp is as much a radicalizing and discrediting influence as it is a safeguard for security.” Well, who argues? A McClatchy story yesterday read, “Nearly 2,700 Iraqi civilians were killed in the city in September.” Well, who killed them? Baathist insurgents or Iranian-backed militias? If the public read that Iranian-backed militias killed nearly 2700 civilians, we might be less willing to reward their murderers. From today’s New York Times: “Most of the 500 municipal workers who have been killed here since 2005 have been trash collectors.” Again, someone did the killing. Why hide it? It’s important to know what we are up against. I’d submit two conclusions: Journalists do not use the active voice because they do not know the subject of the action—in which case their editors should send them back to ask tough questions—or the editors wish to absolve the subjects for political reasons. Either way, it’s poor journalism and irresponsible punditry.
Also at the Corner, military historian Victor Davis Hanson notes another curious development in journalism;
Another journalistic trait besides the rise of the passive voice to deflect culpability is the new virtual footnote that references nothing. You flip to the back in the endnotes section, only to see cited, "Senior official" or "Unnamed Pentagon planner." These pseudo-footnotes are increasingly popular in the post-Jason Blair era, as if they can give a veneer of credibility to use of the old sensational, unnamed (and sometimes dubious) source.
It may be that these tactics are just a defensive response to the rising corrective power of the blogosphere - one can't fact-check a journalist who is careful not to provide any.
The passive voice is a close cousin to the highly selective "Canadians/Americans believe" reporting, so-called "man on the street" interviews, and News Created By Polls Created To Create News.
For example, you'll have no difficulty finding articles written over the past two years in which "ordinary Canadians" are quoted about their beliefs that "Conservatives are scary", that "women don't trust" Stephen Harper, or that George W. Bush "lied" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as though that person's opinion is representative of a significant number of citizens - which it may well be.
However, try to find similar emotion-based reports quoting Canadian voters who hate Jean Chretien with all the fury of the most ardent Bush basher, or bi-monthly polling measuring how many "still believe the Liberal Party has flirted with organized crime" and you'll search long and hard.
Canadians who are fearful of where the Liberals would take the country exist in significant numbers, but those views aren't worthy of exploration or measurement, because they don't fit the liberal-left default setting of the majority in media. Why should anyone "fear" the left?
Emotional reaction to the right is quite another matter, however - in the eyes of most in media, those fears are legitimate - thus, newsworthy. So, they work to reinforce and validate the emotional memes they have arbitrarily chosen to be politically relevant, returning to the streets every few weeks to ask "Do you still find Stephen Harper "scary" now that soldiers are dying in Afghanistan"? Just in case we've forgotten.
Something that has me puzzled is the time relationship between the movie "Fail Safe" appearing on Turner Classic Movies yesterday and the disclosure that the North Koreans have nuclear capability.
Am I being too paranoid?
Sheila Fraser is the second most important auditor we have in Canada. Kate is the most important. Many, many a country has lost it's Democracy with the help of a corrupt media.
A suggestion to any one who is computer/web-page savy and wants to make $Millions$. A web page that displays news stories with slant and bias. By clicking on the headlines/text the real version of events/phrase would appear.
Example; PM's Anti-Israel Comment Disgraceful: Inmatief. --- CLICK --- PM's Comment On Liberals Disgraceful; Ignatief.
It would call the spin-masters to task.
It would make any slander/misquotes very obvious.
It would be very entertaining.
It may just save our Democracy.
It may just make as much money as YouTube !!
It is widely known that the media is on side with communist sympathizers. Many people have stated that the media would like to destroy freedom loving peoples in the hopes that they would cozy up to the ruling class of Libranos. A large number of people have legitimate fears that the media is not giving them a fair and balanced view of the world and is covering up stories that have a favourable right wing slant.
Yes, the passive voice is a neat tactic, as is the 'anonymous source' and the unverified poll of 'a majority of Canadians say that'...The tactics are used to present a purely fictional opinion; they present a conclusions AS IF it was based on hard data, on expert sources, on a random majority, when in fact, the opinion is unsubstantiated and invalid.
Yes, the liberal-left is the default setting in our MSM. It is incredible, the constant Harper-Bashing in our media. CBC and CTV are outdoing each other in their constant attacks against Harper. After all, Canada has raised its current generation within the welfare state liberal-left ideology and these people dominate the MSM.
I fear the left...
I think half of this phenomenon is leftist-driven-agenda reporting. The other half is the functional near illiteracy in English of most MSM reporters.
(My personal pet peeve is the now common and fashionable elimination of the use of paragraphs in "news" articles. The reader sees merely strung together sentences or miniparagraphs. IMO, it renders the article far less coherent and forceful.)
There's a really excellent article entitled "Identifying Biased News Coverage" at the blog Honest Reporting Canada. The article lists seven key violations of media objectivity and gives examples of each. If you're like me, you'll be thinking "Yeah, I remember on CBC...CBS...CNN...NY Times...Toronto Star...". The Comrades in the MSM have a limited bag of tricks, which they use over and over with great success.
Of course, understanding these tricks and bearing them in mind can be applied with all Western reporting, whether one is reading newspapers, magazines, websites or watching TV. I'd almost suggest everyone print out the article and tape it up next to his/her monitor, as a good BS detector.
The URL is http://www.honestreporting.ca/English/Identifying-Biased-News-Coverage.html
You've got it absolutely right when you said that there are significant numbers of people in this country who are fearful of what the liberals would do to this country if they get back in any time soon. What a crying shame that would be.
I remember when Trudeau got back in after Joe Clark's minority how sick I was of seeing his face (and I was just a young teenager at the time). I wondered how voters could possibly want more of that.
And now, I put this current crop of liberals in that basket. How sick I am of seeing their smug faces telling us "what Canadians think". They do not have an enshrined right to govern as they like to think. What a sad day it would be if they skulk back into power again, after all the good that has been achieved in a few short months under a new government.
Excellant observations, on the lack of actual news(facts)in the news today and how things can get spun because of it.
The lack of sources is particularly maddening because you can't even look things up yourself if you are so inclined.
I think that Warren Kinsella.com Oct16 2006 would also agree that the Canadian Media's promoting of the field of Liberal leader candidates is pathetic. WK, a once powerful Federal Liberal, has wrote many times; Stephen Harper is NOT scary. The media keeps saying he is. How many times did we see video clips of PMPM saying Harper is scary. Headline; polls say (not Canadians say) Harper is scary. Martin quips, Harper has hidden adgenda, shown over and over again. Meanwhile the media never mentioned Martin's adgenda, past and present. Such as involvement with life time mentor Maurice Strong and his UN adgenda. One World Governance, Fringe Relligion preservation, Earth Charter, Tongsun Park, Saddam's Oil For Food Scandal, Petro Canada, Ontario Hydro 1970s Costa Rica rain forest fiasco.
I'll add this:
Whenever the media has on an "expert" or even a "person on the street" they invariably support the narrative of the story.
Now, consider that they were selected by news editors in one of two ways:
1) selected based on some predetermined criteria or
2) they were selected at random.
Notice that there's no middle ground to the above two. Either it was random or it wasn't (intentional selection was going on).
Now is there any chance on God's green Earth that those who eventually make it onto our television screens just happen to be the first person randomly selected to speak on the issue?
No, of course not.
So they're selected to speak - in support of the narrative.
At least we now have blogs as a weapon against the formerly impregnable Federal Ministry of Lies and Deception. And the more computer savvy Canadians become the less the MSM will have any sort of power. In the not so distant future, television will be delivered on the internet. Check jumptv.com
They're relics of the past. Craig Oliver, Duffy and whatsername - R.I.P.
Just for the record, Kate, I loathe Chretien, Paul Martin, Bob Rae,etc. I loathed and continue to loathe PET with a passion. He almost single-handedly, with the collaboration of the MSM, destroyed Canada as a viable, coherent society.
How many times was I asked for my opinion?
Never.
I see Stephen Harper as a forlorn hope at best.
But I sure don't despise him.
That's quite brilliant -- I'd never spotted the connection between the passive voice and incomplete journalism, and I work in the media.
One word of caution, though: When you have an hour or two to deadline and you've got to file a story alluding to deaths in Iraq (or anywhere else, for that matter) and you're not sure who did the killing, ass-coverage with devices like the passive voice might sometimes be the only alternative to just ignoring the story. It's a little more complicated than having an editor send you back to ask, in time for deadline, al-Qaeda in Iraq whether they pulled the trigger, or questioning local police authorities who might not know themselves.
That's when you're stuck using weasel-words.
Also, just to respond to the guy who lamented the use of anonymous sources: Nobody likes 'em, and they have admittedly become something of a crutch to politicians seeking to take covert cheap shots, and to journalists seeking a cheap score.
But you can't simply write off anonymous sourcing in one fell swoop. If we never used anonymous sources, almost all the information in the public domain would be placed there by the government and, more specifically, a handful of the most powerful people in government. Virtually no cabinet minister, political staffer, or public servant would dare challenge any of the ideas put forward by a prime minister and his inner circle -- or his behaviour.
Anonymous sources gave us Adscam, and they continue to expose bad public policy in a way that opposition parties rarely do.
It seems to be getting impossible to posthere with all the restrictions.
AmI really going to contact the Webmaster?
That's quite brilliant -- I'd never spotted the connection between the passive voice and incomplete journalism, and I work in the media.
One word of caution, though: When you have an hour or two to deadline and you've got to file a story alluding to deaths in Iraq (or anywhere else, for that matter) and you're not sure who did the killing, ass-coverage with devices like the passive voice might sometimes be the only alternative to just ignoring the story. It's a little more complicated than having an editor send you back to ask, in time for deadline, al-Qaeda in Iraq whether they pulled the trigger, or questioning local police authorities who might not know themselves.
That's when you're stuck using weasel-words.
Also, just to respond to the guy who lamented the use of anonymous sources: Nobody likes 'em, and they have admittedly become something of a crutch to politicians seeking to take covert cheap shots, and to journalists seeking a cheap score.
But you can't simply write off anonymous sourcing in one fell swoop. If we never used anonymous sources, almost all the information in the public domain would be placed there by the government and, more specifically, a handful of the most powerful people in government. Virtually no cabinet minister, political staffer, or public servant would dare challenge any of the ideas put forward by a prime minister and his inner circle -- or his behaviour.
Anonymous sources gave us Adscam, and they continue to expose bad public policy in a way that opposition parties rarely do.
Well said. I think the Foley vs. Dirty Harry coverage outlines the media bias well also.
most stories in CBCpravda are rift with "critics say" or "some scientists say" even if they are Richard Hoagland.
or they publish polls like they are facts, ie. "90% of Canadians say greenhouse gases have affected their lives" which may be a fact in the statement but implies much more.
so we have instead of true reporting, a separate agenda reported as facts.
and speaking of loathing, I wont go see that movie Bon Cop, Bad Cop because that guy did such a good job of being Trudeau ( I just say the commercials) that seeing him in any movie would make me get sick in my own mouth.
Many people are saying that SDA is a divisive voice in the Canadian Blogosphere and are wondering when action is going to be taken.
Media and liberal party sources contacted yesterday claimed that SDA which purports to be an independent, not-for-profit outfit, may in fact be something quite different.
"The jury is still out" was the view of many of the media insiders contacted on this issue.
A senior liberal party advisor was quoted as saying, "Yeah riiiight, there's this chick in Saskatchewan called "Kate" giving us so much grief. Gimme a break. You know who's behind all this".
The same source revealed to this reporter that they were extremely skeptical that the failed Harper government could be relied on to take decisive action on this contentious and critical problem which has the entire nation reeling.
“Anonymous sources gave us Adscam, and they continue to expose bad public policy in a way that opposition parties rarely do.”
I was under the impression that it was Sheila Fraser that gave us Adscam. I distinctly remember David Asper writing on his NP op-ed page, early on in the Adscam exposure, something like “ OK, this Adscam thing has had enough play, the Liberals get the point, let’s move on”.
Also it’s one thing to protect a source about a factual event such as Adscam. But to do that in regard to the constant “Harper’s scary” comments from nobodies … that isn’t about protection, that is simply media bias.
The worst thing about the media and population in general is, if someone breaks a big story, by what ever means, anything that person writes, says or authors is taken as gopel, even 30 years later. Bob Woodward comes to mind. The reverse is also true, if a person gets it wrong, for the next 30 years everything they say and do is wrong.
How many commentators have been experts since trudeas time, are still experts today, and they have never had a change of opinion or new thought in all those years.
Then you have the cbc, ctv, g&m and others who get everything wrong every time. The topic on CNNs Reliable Sources on Sun had a panel on the bias in the media and how the majority of citizens no longer trust it. Viewership is down and readership is down. Curic is turning into a big disaster for CBS. The honchos will soon realize that we want truth, no matter how bad, or how unattractive the anchor, instead of fashion models with fluff. Pay attention to some of the political spinners and reporters,(most under 30). Where did they get their experience or knowledge.
Then, google them and discover who their spouses are and what corporations or industry they are involved in.
The "Passive Voice" analysis seems to be true and very widespread. I've wondered whether this goes back to a reaction by media types to the implications of Chomski's "Manufacturing Consent".
Are the media types trying to avoid the pitfalls of ingrained bias through the use of Passive Voice?
Or is it just an expression of their ingrained bias?
Maybe a bit of both.
Tony: Absolutely the anonymous source is valuable. However, used indiscriminately will diminish it's value. The example of fauxtography and polls comes to mind.
Nomdenet: Adscam had already been in the news for two years when Sheila Fraser submitted her report.
It started with anonymous sources pointing the Globe and Mail to untoward goings-on in the Public Works department.
Now the Bloc Quebecois claims credit for exposing the scandal as an example of how they "defended the interests of Quebecers", and Conservative supporters credit the Tories and Sheila Fraser for exposing Adscam.
But the media broke this story four years ago, and kept it in the news for a good deal of time since then. The Liberals' political opponents certainly drew plenty of fodder from the Fraser report, but that's nothing compared with what they got from the morning headlines.
Dear jlc
A man of your talents is obviously wasted in the comments section of the fascist, hard-right blogosphere. We need more of your type here at Mother Corp. (Susan D.'s drooling and foaming at the mouth is getting to be a bit off-putting, especially at meal-times) Have your secretary call my secretary; we'll do lunch.
Rabin Robertovitch
Tony, if that’s your story then it’s literally … news … to most of us.
Nobody knows that, so why not print it?
Meanwhile, Sheila Fraser was not a “passive source” any way shape or form. She got the facts and laid them out professionally. Her assertiveness kept Adscam alive. She deserves the Order of Canada.
The passive voice in news stories always irked me but I couldn't put a finger on why until this blogspot. There's a great book out titled "Logical Self Defence". It points out the classic errors of logic with plenty of illustrations. It's an interesting and surprisingly easy read and is very helpful when it comes to putting a finger on why a statement or argument is false or, at best, very dubious. Unfortunately I doubt that any journalists or many school teachers for that matter would be familiar with the principles of sound reasoning. And it shows -- both in the opinionated rot that gets fobbed off as news (more editorial than fact), and in the pathetic inability of most people to recognize it for what it is.
Tony - your hypothetical scenario of journalist ass covering by weasel wording because the facts are inadequate before deadline is why print news is on it's last legs. These dead tree dinosaurs had better change their ways, quickly move it all online where stories aren't deadlined by the truck driver's schedule, and, more importantly, get a wikipedia-like attitude by opening themselves to transparency via public comments and instant corrections or they are gone in a few years. I'm not saying that the dumber, that don't understand the culture of the Internet, won't perish here as well.
Good one, jlc.
jlc, LOL.
D@mn! You nearly had me convinced.
By any chance were you ever a writer or journalist for the CBC?
:))
Kate's back!And in fine form!
And did anyone see(Duffy sans Duffy) Gidget Taber try to put words in Danny Williams mouth? I heard twice:"So did Harper get really angry and stomp out of the room?"
Danny's reply each time: "No"
And Robert Fife said Adscam and a fine Liberal record all in one sentence.
No not biased...
Don Martin's article in NP said the Libs mentioned federal control of the internet. State run...like CBC? Kate...they are so on to you and annoyed.
Now that's rich. The Libs toying with the idea of Federal control of the internet.
What's really needed is Federal control of the Libs.
:((
Hmmm....
Maybe something like the anti-gang legislation could be used to keep the Libs in check. Now there's a thought.
Maybe Googles visionary "Truth Checker" software will do the trick!
arent these authors supposed to at least keep a file matching up the unnamed sources with real people for legal purposes even if they dont get into the footnotes?
Passive Voice in journalism is both lazy and against the best interests of the nation. I also note that the form of passive voice used is the incomplete passive voice:
"Mr A. hid the document." OR
"Someone, possibly Mr A., hid the document." OR "The document was hidden by Mr. A." NOT
"The document was hidden."
Complete form Passive Voice is used for science! It has very valid uses in describing how a process works. Active voice is better for reporting, although complete form passive voice has its uses.
Hey tony, vis a vis your comment "If we never used anonymous sources, almost all the information in the public domain would be placed there by the government and, more specifically, a handful of the most powerful people in government": Isn't that what happened for years under the Librano$, whether or not the Canadian MSM named their sources? Nice try, but no cigar.
The Libs, effectively, have got about 95% of the MSM's support--heck, more than support, out and out pro-Liberal propagandizing to deliberately put those on the conservative end of the political spectrum in a very bad light. The CBC is one of the worst offenders and what really sticks in my craw is that the CBC is pretty much fully funded by the Canadian taxpayer--except for their advertising revenue: Now why would a "national broadcaster," given $1 billion of taxpayer dollars every year need to resort to advertising revenue? Isn't that an unfair advantage over privately owned broadcasters?
It's time for the CBC and other left-lib media outlets to allow a significant number of Canadians, who don't buy the Librano/NDP/Bloc bilge and who, actually, are quite observant and politically savvy (oh-oh), to voice our opinions. And we wouldn't insist on being anonymous, because we have the power of our convictions.
I know this would cause a deepening of Keith Boag's look of complete distaste whenever he has to report on a CPC or PMSH success, but what the heck? Isn't Canada still a democracy? Or have the CBC and other like-minded media outlets turned us into a Banana Republic?
Speaking of passive agressive liberals, I think once in awhile Paul Wells gets some things partly right. But then he intentionally blows it.
In a column I read today Paul Wells criticizes Canada and praises the USA government (and Pres. Bush!) for being very involved in scientific R&D and for sweeping this years science awards for Nobel Prizes. But then I think Mr. wells just has to take the Liberal tack and include this wrong (i.e. Liberal) conclusion.
"Stephen Harper's government has promised a new look at science and technology before the next budget. It has commissioned studies and consulted with universities. But it's easy to tell when this government is passionate about something (Afghanistan) and when it isn't."
IMHO this is just a low liberal growl directed at PMSH (and the military). In the USA a lot of spending on R&D is done with the military working with the big defence contractors and the universities. Also the USA has had a really good GI Bill (college paid for by the military) contributing towards its many many scientific advancements for something like the last sixty years.
Just imagine SARGENT JOE FRIDAY asking some liberal left-wing journalists his famous line JUST THE FACTS the liberals would be at a loss for words
We've had crooked Liberals,crooked Tories so what's left? Exactly the NDP. And all the crooked buisnesses and politicians are worried. Why not give the NDP a chance? What will happen? The other 2 big parties have had their chance and failed. I vote on policies not personality. Good looks and a makeover doesn't sway me. The Liberals and Tories are scared they will go down.
The Bloq is afraid they'll lose seats. So meanwhile we let parliament play war games ,call each other names and nothing gets done. I would guarantee an NDP gov't can omly do better. I've lived under Tory and NDP govrnments. We went 10 steps backward with the Tories and we're booming under this gov't. The SaskParty will destroy a good thing. They will break us for sure,they will divide us more,they will help a few of their rich friends and the rest of us can go to hell. They are not a people party. But history will show us. If the Saskparty gets elected they'll spend like drunkin sailors to buy votes. Then we'll be broke or some scandal will hit the party and we start all over again. From the bottom. Tory times are hard times.
We have soldiers dying to make our Prime Minister look credible.