Replies

You can't follow the rules of valid journalism and consistently come out with a liberal bias.

Actually, on some issues one could do so very easily.

Which of the following news stories do you think would play better on a nightly newscast, even if ideology wasn't a factor:

1: [City street; night. Reporter in fg. Police cars visible in near bg with lights flashing.]
Here at the intersection of 33rd and 24th, around 7:40pm, a jogger's nightly stroll turned tragic when she was gunned down in an apparent robbery...
2: [City street; night. Reporter in fg. No activity visible in bg.]
Here at the intersection of 33rd and 24th, around 7:40pm, a heinous crime didn't happen. A jogger was approached by a man who suggested that she should hand over her wallet. When the jogger drew a Kel-Kec P32, the approaching individual apparently decided he had urgent business elsewhere as he left in great haste.

One doesn't need to have a liberal bias to decide that the first news story is more newsworthy than the second. After all, most people aren't interested in reading about things that could have happened, but didn't.

I don't consider your examples to be demonstrations of liberal bias. They were focused on facts, with a bit of license for colorful language. You seem to believe that is is 'liberal' to report the unusual, and 'conservative' to report the mundane. That has never been my contention.

Here's the bias angle: "James Jones, 19, was shot and killed at the intersection of 33rd and 24th. Sarah Brady, spokesperson for Handgun Control Inc. said, 'This demonstrates the danger of handguns. Yet another child has been killed by a gun.'"

There is no reference to crime or any potential justification for the use of the weapon, the 'report' is dominated by a quote - not facts - and the quote is from a liberal activist.

In contrast, both of your examples are dominated by facts, which means either could be examples of 'good' journalism, though - like you mentioned - I would not expect to see the non-crime reported.