The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) recently released a study that shows that many corporations paid their CEOs more than they paid in federal income taxes. With all the focus on the federal budget these days, the conclusions that IPS draws are sobering.
I've read several articles about this study. I've noted that how the information is presented comes off oddly when the reporting source is the mainstream media. For example, Reuters informs readers in the second paragraph that IPS is "a left-leaning group." I find this designation as strange because I rarely see the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute described as "right-leaning."
But my biggest critique of the Reuters version of this story is the amount of column inches devoted to rebuttals and where in the article itself these rebuttals are placed.
Before sharing ANY of the specifics contained in the study, representatives from General Electric and Boeing were given 4 paragraphs to dispute the data. It is only in the bottom half of the article that we finally learn some of the particulars that IPS utilized to draw its conclusions.
It is common knowledge in the field of journalism that people tend to read only the first few paragraphs of any news article. Consequently, by placing the information in a topsy-turvy manner, most readers will only read the rebuttals and never make it to the meat of the study. In other words, readers will come away with a negative opinion of the study without knowing much of anything about it!
My second observation has to do with the pyramid style of reporting that students learn in any journalism class. (Note: I have a BA in journalism.) You start with the most important information at the top and work your way down from there. In the present case, the most important part of the story is to share information about the methodology and conclusions of the IPS study.
Once this is presented, then, in fairness, space should be allotted to those who dispute the methodology and/or findings. By presenting the rebuttals first, the writer taints the subject matter. The manner of presentation will lead the average reader to believe the rebuttals hold more validity than the study itself.
Many of us like to lampoon Faux News for their over-the-top slant in all they report. But this problem is just as pervasive -- albeit more subtle -- with all the other mainstream media outfits. This article from Reuters offers a glaring example.
I've read several articles about this study. I've noted that how the information is presented comes off oddly when the reporting source is the mainstream media. For example, Reuters informs readers in the second paragraph that IPS is "a left-leaning group." I find this designation as strange because I rarely see the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute described as "right-leaning."
But my biggest critique of the Reuters version of this story is the amount of column inches devoted to rebuttals and where in the article itself these rebuttals are placed.
Before sharing ANY of the specifics contained in the study, representatives from General Electric and Boeing were given 4 paragraphs to dispute the data. It is only in the bottom half of the article that we finally learn some of the particulars that IPS utilized to draw its conclusions.
It is common knowledge in the field of journalism that people tend to read only the first few paragraphs of any news article. Consequently, by placing the information in a topsy-turvy manner, most readers will only read the rebuttals and never make it to the meat of the study. In other words, readers will come away with a negative opinion of the study without knowing much of anything about it!
My second observation has to do with the pyramid style of reporting that students learn in any journalism class. (Note: I have a BA in journalism.) You start with the most important information at the top and work your way down from there. In the present case, the most important part of the story is to share information about the methodology and conclusions of the IPS study.
Once this is presented, then, in fairness, space should be allotted to those who dispute the methodology and/or findings. By presenting the rebuttals first, the writer taints the subject matter. The manner of presentation will lead the average reader to believe the rebuttals hold more validity than the study itself.
Many of us like to lampoon Faux News for their over-the-top slant in all they report. But this problem is just as pervasive -- albeit more subtle -- with all the other mainstream media outfits. This article from Reuters offers a glaring example.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.