Slice-o-Life: In Possession of Error, or Cheating on the Front Page

Slice-o-Life: In Possession of Error, or Cheating on the Front Page
by Mike Madias, Clinical Sociologist and Columnist

August 19, 2002

Columnist Mike Madias "It is one thing to show a man that he is in error and another to put him in possession of truth." - John Locke

Thesis:

There are different types of articles that appear in the front section of a newspaper. There are "event stories" - man bites dog: who? what? where? when? why? This model goes also for the "he says" type events: President George W. Bush told an audience of high school children that dogs should be bitten. There are editorials. Our View: men should bite dogs. And op/eds: I think dogs should be bitten.

There are also pieces that are more like news magazine journalism. News magazines are weekly, there is little "breaking news" possible. The pieces have to possess shelf life. This is done by casting a wider net: Unbitten dogs run rampant in America's Neighborhoods. When such pieces run in newspapers, they usually start on the front page with a photo and a teaser lead and continue to a large spread inside the paper. They are the newspaper's money shot. The grab the attention of the reader and pull him in and through all the ads from wireless phone companies. USA Today labels such pieces a "Cover Story."

A reporter can cheat on those type of articles and slip an opinion piece on the front page. An arrogant writer will want to express his opinion, but can not do it on the front page. So, he will seek out an expert to act as his mouthpiece, and turn it into a "he says" event piece.

An honest cover story has this structure. It has a thesis, and offers substantial evidence that supports that thesis.

A cover story from the Wednesday, August 14, issue of USA Today is an example of cheating on the front page.

The Evidence:

This last Wednesday in USA Today, there was a front page cover story that was an example of biased reporting, and incomplete news gathering. It was almost invisible to me. For a while, I believed that a string of quotations, a page full of "he said" items, equaled evidence. I did not expect an opinion piece in the middle of the front page.

The story had this headline "Global warmth for US after 9-11 turns to frost - military plans repulse even European allies."

It lead with a short anecdote where an American traveling through England asks someone on a train, "Why does everybody hate us?" The answer given: Americans are hated because of the direction of our foreign policy and because of the influence of our popular culture.

The premise offered in the story was that "anti-American sentiment has turned into a contagion spreading across the globe and infecting even the United States' most important allies."

Here is the evidence that the USA Today piece offered: 1) the opinion of a British marketing consultant; 2) the opinion of a member of the House of Lords; 3) the opinion of a professor with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 4) the opinion of a social worker from Amsterdam; 5) an opinion of another consultant; 6) the opinion of still another consultant; 7) the opinion of a banker; 8) the opinion of a retired tennis player; 9) the opinion of a washed out pop singer; 10) a public opinion poll taken by the Council on Foreign Relations; 11) a public opinion poll taken by Der Spiegel; 12) a public opinion poll done for the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

The story goes on to say that the Bush administration has established a public relations unit called the "Office of Global Communications." Also, the House of Representatives has appropriated $225 million on further international PR efforts. Here is the summation of their case. There is a lot of selected opinion noted, and folks in the Government believe it.

Editorial comment:

This cover story does not offer substantial support for the thesis implied, (everybody hates us) or stated (anti-American sentiment has infected the entire world).

The story only proved two things.

First, that selected mouthpieces here and abroad have voiced criticisms of various aspects of US politics and culture.

Second, at least for the August 14 front page, the news editor at USA Today was willing to put overblown and one-sided reporting on his front page and give it a sensational and misleading headline ("Global warmth for US after 9-11 turns to frost - military plans repulse even European allies.")

The function of the front page is to sell the paper so readers can thumb through pages and pages of advertising. And it is the sad case that whatever bleeds, leads. But is it the job of the editor and publisher to ensure that the lead story has real blood, not some theatrical substitute.

To be fair to USA Today, a front page piece from Thursday, August 15, "Air Marshal Program in disarray, insiders say" by Blake Morrison was solid stuff: good stuff. It was a real cover story.

Also, USA Today allows readers to interact with reporters at its web site and hold their feet to the fire. I am convinced that USA Today can produce high value journalism. I am dismayed by the low quality of the work that floated it to the top in Wednesday's paper.

We have seen work much worse than the Wednesday piece, and work better than the material published on Thursday. Newspaper work is difficult. It is a collaborative undertaking. I offer my criticism as a gift to people I respect.

"USA Today hopes to serve as a forum for better understanding and unity to help make the USA truly one nation" - Allen H. Neuharth, founder of USA Today ***

"Don't unthinkingly follow authorities, whether intellectual, or political, or religious. And don't unthinkingly follow traditions or social conventions. Think for yourself. Look at the facts and try to base your views and behavior on how things actually are." - John Locke

Photo of Mike Madias courtesy of the author

A clinical sociologist living in the Metropolitan Detroit area, Mike's work has appeared in The Detroit News. He may be reached by e-mail at News4629@aol.com.