Posted by
The Secular Conservative on Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:12:16 PM
Hugh Hewett is particularly good at exposing liberal journalists on his radio show, and occasionally callers to C-SPAN try to catch journalists by trying to get them to admit their liberal biases. Journalists have become good at dodging these traps in the name of personal privacy and the appearance of objectivity. But there are ways around their verbal acrobatics.
Here's how you lay the trap for a liberal journalist who won't admit he is a liberal:
Question 1: Do you think it's possible for an individual to have personal opinions on a subject (even controversial personal opinions) and yet maintain an objective position when writing a column, editorial, or news piece?YES Without a doubt, the journalist will say yes, because that is what they claim to do every day. They know they are liberal deep down, but they truly believe they can maintain an objective outer layer. Go to question #2.
NO It's inconceivable that the journalist will say no, but saying no should provide you with more than enough opportunitites for follow-up. After all, that means no one can be objective unless they have no opinions. Start trying to pin him down on political topics like war, taxes, etc. just to see if he reveals an opinion.
Question 2: Do you think your viewers/readers share your understanding that objectivity is possible even when the writer/speaker has personal opinions?
YES Most journalists should say yes because they realize the average citizen has opinions but knows when to disguise those opinions (e.g. work, social settings). Plus, the smart ones don't want to suggest readers/viewers aren't smart enough to see the difference. Your trap is now set -- go to question #3.
NO The journalist that says no has a very low opinion of his audience. Apparently we're all ignorant and don't understand the subtleties of life as well as our media overlords. While the journalist has successfully avoided the trap, you know something else that demonstrates his opinion of the rest of us.
Question 3: Great, so we agree (this builds a common bond with the journalist). It's possible for you to have a liberal or conservative opinion on something but remain objectives, and you agree that readers/listeners are sophisticated enough to know this, too. I guess you wouldn't object to sharing some of your opinions, knowing that it doesn't get in the way of your objectivity?
When was the last time you voted for a Republican for President?
Are you for or against abortion?
Are you for or against the war in Iraq?
Is there evidence that mankind is causing global warming?
Insert additional questions here...
Since you've probably been cut off by this point, there's very little else you can do; hopefully everyone got the point. If you still have an opportunity for a question and your journalist played along by answering your last round of questions...
Conclude with this question: Do you think your viewers/readers could predict your opinions based on your columns/editorials/news reports, or have you failed to be completely objective?
This one could provide a little enlightenment because it's likely the journalist's opinions have been readily apparent from his work, and the concept of objectivity is understandably moot. Regardless of the answer to this last one, you will learn a lot about your trapped journalist.
-tsc