I’ve been contemplating perceived bias, recently, and I think people see bias in reports or information that doesn’t match their personal stance, belief system, political beliefs, etc.  Even when the facts support a story, if it doesn’t agree with a viewer’s beliefs, they are likely to see that story as biased.  That’s unfortunate, but a reality.

We recently received the following e-mail in the newsrom:

On today’s news, you reported on the Bi-State group working on trying to save the Aresenal.  You gave an interview to a Union leader and cited speaking with Dick Durbin.  Why was there no interview with Bobby Schilling?  He stepped up, formed this committee, and brught all of the local leaders together from both sides of the river.

If you want to be perceived as a credible news organization, then give the truthful story to the public and not credit to those who do not deserve it.

The viewer brings up some seemingly valid points, actually.  However, the facts do not support his stance.  Here is the response one of my colleagues sent to the viewer:

I’m unaware whether or not anyone else from WQAD has gotten back to you on this, so I’ve taken time to do a little research specifically for you and would appreciate a response:

I’ll look forward to hearing back from you and hope you have a nice weekend.

At this point, the viewer has yet to respond.

Posted: February 6th, 2012 under Journalism, Viewer Response.
Comments: none

 This questions was recently posted to WQAD’s Facebook page:

The budget stalemate in Washington could mean that soldiers at war could not get paid if the government shuts down this weekend. Do you think this is fair? Tell us your comments and thoughts.

It prompted quit a bit of discussion, which is the goal of such a question.  But, it also prompted some nasty, uncalled for comments from some people.

It started with Karene:

I heard that THIS IS NOT the CASE — that even if there is a Govt shutdown — soldiers pay would NOT be involved!? … You might want to check YOUR NEWS first — before spreading false info!?

Eric followed later with:

That is false. You are reporting lies. The U.S. Military will get paid, The SS entitlements will be handed out. Do some research before you report things.

And from Tony:

I don’t want to see a shutdown however the idea that the military won’t get paid is simply untrue. Why a [news] service would post an inflammatory question like this when they should know it is untrue is beyond me.

Okay.  It’s valid to question news content.  While those of us reporting the news at WQAD strive to be accurate, we are, each of us, human.  We an fallible.  We can and do make mistakes.  However, I fail to see the need to bash WQAD for a mistake in such a cruel and condescending manner.  And, this isn’t a mistake!

I did some research and discovered military pay, indeed, is threatened by a government shutdown.  If the government shuts down this weekend, military personnel likely will not receive a paycheck until the budget issue is resolved.  That’s a fact.  It is not a “lie,” nor “false info.”  The person who posted the question did “check YOUR NEWS first” and did “some research before you report things.”  These accusations from those commenting are flat out wrong and inappropriate.

So, please, keep WQAD in check on its reports, but be respectful about it.

Posted: April 6th, 2011 under Facebook, Journalism, Viewer Response.
Comments: none

This morning, the GMQC crew posted this show tease on WQAD’s Facebook page:

Allegations of cheating last season prompt changes to voting on tonight’s premiere of Dancing with the Stars. What you need to know before you vote…on GMQC.

To which someone named “Dave” replied:

No one cares

This kind of comment fascinates me.  For one, Dave cared enough to leave a comment.  If he didn’t care at all, he would’ve ignored the post about DWTS.  Dave actually justified the tease post because it garnered a reaction, which is the goal of any WQAD post.

Of greater interest is the fact Dave is flat out wrong.  Dave used a definitive statement, which is inaccurate.  If “no one” truly cared, then 21 million people would not have tuned in to watch last season’s opening episode.  Dave is either guilty of believing that everyone thinks like him or uses words which he doesn’t actually mean.  A true statement would have been “I don’t care” or “Some people don’t care.”  “No one cares” is just flat out wrong and diminishes Dave’s credibility.

Okay.  It seems like I’m picking on Dave.  That is not my intent.  Dave’s comment serves as an example of what’s wrong with public rhetoric.  All too often, people use words and phrases as absolute statements for things that are not absolute.  It often comes from a place of “I’m right and you’re wrong” or can contribute to that mentality in others.  It’s easy to believe the majority thinks like I do.   When passionate about something, it’s even harder to recognize that I might share a minority opinion.  That, too, is a sign of perceived self-importance and superiority, which contributes to the “us vs. them” mentality that may be the worst part of current public rhetoric and is not reflective of a respect for a democratic society.  It falls more in line with dictatorship.

Or, everybody hates Dancing With the Stars.

Posted: March 21st, 2011 under Viewer Response.
Comments: none

The new “Dancing With the Stars” case was announced last night.  Today, we asked for feedback on our Facebook page and got some very common responses that prove the question was worth asking. Among other examples, these comments point to a verbalized disinterest in something that warranted a comment to verbalize disinterest.

Krissy writes, “i don’t think about it - EVER.”  And yet, Krissy took time to comment.  Aside from it eliciting a comment from Krissy, I also find it interesting that anyone feels the need to comment to the negative.  Why take part in the conversation if the topic is not of interest to you?  Just wondering.

Scott writes, “Noone cares, its time for real tv. No more reality type crap.” Ah, the overused absolute generalization.  Obviously, it’s not true that “no one” cares.  DWTS gets great ratings, so millions of people care.  Also, reality TV continues because it is popular.  So, again, people care.

Elaine writes, “I usually love to watch but it looks like they had a hard time finding “known” stars this year. Not so sure I’ll be watching this season. Yeah… more free time!!!” I disagree.  I think there have been past seasons with fewer “known” stars.  Just because Elaine doesn’t know most of them doesn’t mean most people don’t know them.  Kirstie Alley, Chris Jericho, Lil’ Romeo, Chelsea Kane, Wendy Williams, Sugar Ray Leonard and Ralph Macchio are well known, or at least once enjoyed popularity. That’s seven of the 11 cast members. And, the case could be made that Kendra Wilkinson and Hines Ward are well known.  So, two people are lesser known.  Hmm.

Posted: March 1st, 2011 under Facebook, Viewer Response.
Comments: none

I received an e-mail from a viewer in response to our coverage of federal funding of stem cell research being stopped.  In it, she makes blanket accusations against President Obama, misrepresenting the facts.  That’s common in many opinions shared with us (and frustrates me to no end, since my job is to give the facts, only to have them ignored, but that’s another blog post), but what bothered me most was this woman’s final sentence:

“I don’t know what side of this issue you are on, but I pray that it is the morally right one.”

The morally right one?  Am I wrong that the statement just stinks of judgment and condescension?  This woman stated what she believes and then labelled it as “the morally right” opinion.  And, on top of that, she directed it to me specifically, praying that I, too, am on the morally right side of the debate.  Oh, I am not worthy, madam!

Perhaps I’m overreacting, but I don’t think this good witness to one’s beliefs.  Why would I want to take sides with someone who sees themselves as superior and, in the presentation of their opinion, is quite condescending.  My immediate reaction was to ignore the content of the rest of the e-mail and allow a deep desire to completely disassociate myself with this person simply because she’s so haughty.

This brings me to another lesson I take from listening to viewer opinions and that is regarding to presentation.  If I believe I am right about something and hope to convince someone else of the truth, it will more readily happen if I present it with fact, an open mind and a willingness to accept that there are opinions other than my own.  That creates a comfortable environment for an honest and respectful debate.  People tend to be more so willing to listen and think on opinions opposite of their own in such an environment.

Posted: August 25th, 2010 under 6:30 Talkback, Viewer Response.
Comments: 1

I try to take lessons from listening to viewer comments.  It’s not that I learn facts about anything.  (On the contrary, many of the viewer comments I hear are more often than not ignorant of the facts, despite the fact that I just provided the facts in my newscast.)  Instead, I try to take lessons about the delivery of opinions.

One of those lessons relates to absolutes.  It’s quite common for people to speak their opinions in absolutes.  ”The media always…”  ”Every illegal immigrant…”  ”All Muslims want to…”  The thing is, absolute statements are absolutely not true.  Statements about “the media” condemn every single member of the media, which isn’t accurate.  The word “always” is a lofty accusation that cannot be supported by the facts.  And, every member of a race or a religion is not like every other member.  Not all illegal immigrants are entering our country for shady reasons.  Some want a better life for their families.  Not all Muslims want death to all infidels.  There are peace-loving Muslims, just as there are Christians who would kill non-Christians.  Absolutes are absolutely not true.

And so, I’m quite careful with my speech, making sure for qualify my generalizations or be specific rather than using a blanket statement that’s not supportable as absolutely true.  Too many people are vilified because some choose to judge an entire group for the actions of the few.

Posted: August 24th, 2010 under 6:30 Live Chat, 6:30 Talkback, Viewer Response.
Comments: none

I broke my first rule of viewer opinions, which is never respond to viewer opinions beyond a thank you.

A viewer e-mailed the 6:30 last night in response to our In Depth look at Afghanistan.  While sharing about his sun just returning from a tour there, he basically accused us of being irresponsible by talking only to the heads of the military and not the soldiers who’ve served there.  He also said we have no right to ask viewers for their opinions, unless the viewer is a soldier who’s served in Afghanistan.

I often disagree with the opinions shared with the 6:30.  While I respect an individual’s right to an opinion, I do not respect an opinion that’s not grounded in facts, but is based on misinformation or blatantly ignoring the facts.  It is my job to provide the facts on which an opinion can be made.  It bothers me greatly when someone sees a show I’ve produced and then e-mails us with thoughts that directly contradict the facts included in the show.  However, I do not respond to opinions.  I read them, acknowledge that it’s merely someone’s opinion and I move on.  As a rule, I do not respond with my own thoughts as it only stirs up trouble.  I respect that a viewer has an opinion and value that he or she has shared it with us regardless of whether or not I agree with the opinion.

Accusations, however, are another story.  I have trouble letting pointed accusations slide.  Despite my better judgment, I respond to them and point out the errors made within the statements of blame.  It rarely goes well, as it didn’t with the viewer saying we are irresponsible in our coverage of Afghanistan.  It inevitably gets personal.  I do, however, end the back and forth in the same way, with self deprecation and apology regardless of whether or not I’m right.  But, it would be better if I simply didn’t reply in the first place.  :-(  Live and learn.

Posted: June 30th, 2010 under Viewer Response.
Comments: none