[Karah Rucker]
THERE ARE SOME BASIC RULES OF JOURNALISM 1-0-1 –
AND I’VE FOUND SOME OF THE BIGGEST NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AREN’T FOLLOWING THEM WHEN IT COMES TO THE MAJOR STORY ABOUT THE U.S. MILITARY STRIKING BOATS OFF THE COAST OF VENEZUELA.
A JOURNALIST IS SUPPOSED TO BALANCE A STORY –
BY INCLUDING MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES AND GIVING EACH RELEVANT VIEWPOINT A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT THESE STRIKES –
MANY NEWS OUTLETS ARE LEAVING OUT IMPORTANT CONTEXT –
A BREACH OF ETHICS BY MOST STANDARDS – THAT REVEALS THEIR BIAS.
HERE’S WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT A U.S. PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY OVER THE MILITARY – AND THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION.
WELCOME BACK TO BIAS BREAKDOWN.
LET’S START WITH THIS —
MORE THAN A HANDFUL OF SMALL BOATS OFF THE COAST OF VENEZUELA HAVE BEEN STRUCK BY THE U.S. MILITARY SINCE SEPTEMBER SECOND.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS EVERY TARGETED VESSEL WAS CARRYING DRUGS WITH SUSPECTED “NARCO-TERRORISTS” ON BOARD.
THE STRIKES HAVE LEFT THE BOATS OBLITERATED AND AT LEAST 27 PEOPLE DEAD.
THIS LATEST U.S. MILITARY ACTION HAS SPARKED A MAJOR DEBATE IN THE MEDIA — OVER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS ACTING WITHIN HIS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT SUCH STRIKES.
NEWS OUTLETS ON THE LEFT INTERVIEWED GUESTS WHO SAID THE PRESIDENT’S ORDERS ARE “ILLEGAL.”
[MSNBC]
“Just give me a sense of how you read this from a legal vantage point?”
“The answer is quite simple. He has no domestic or international authority to conduct these strikes.”
[CNN]
is there a legal basis?
Under any circumstances, he doesn’t have domestic authority, he doesn’t have international authority.
[MSNBC]
“this was murder on the high seas the u.s. Military carried out an illegal order.”
BUT NEWS OUTLETS ON THE RIGHT INTERVIEWED GUESTS WHO ARGUED THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
[FOX]
“is the president on solid legal ground here? He does have a legal case and i think it can be made. He is acting as commander in chief against an imminent danger.”
under the president’s broad authority to combat imminent threats including drugs that poison americans, he will take you out.”
does he need to seek congressional approval? I don’t think he needs congressional approval.
IS IT JUST A COINCIDENCE THAT LEFT-LEANING OUTLETS SELECTED GUESTS THAT SPOKE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT –
AND NETWORKS ON THE RIGHT SELECTED GUESTS THAT BACKED HIM?
PROBABLY NOT.
SO THERE YOU HAVE THE POLITICAL NARRATIVES AND NOISE OVER THE ISSUE.
AND – A FORM OF MEDIA BIAS.
THESE SEGMENTS ONLY OFFERED ONE CONCLUSION –
RATHER THAN INCLUDING ANY OPPOSING ARGUMENT –
WHEN THERE’S CLEARLY TWO POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES TO THIS ONE ISSUE.
THAT’S BIAS BY VIEWPOINT OMISSION.
THAT’S THE OVERARCHING PATTERN OF BIAS I FOUND FROM NEWS OUTLETS COVERING THIS STORY.
INCLUDING THIS EXAMPLE FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.
THE PIECE FEATURES MANY CRITICAL VOICES.
A FORMER AMBASSADOR WHO SAYS THE STRIKES UNDERMINE INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING.
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ADAM SCHIFF – WHO ARGUED TRUMP DID NOT HAVE PROPER AUTHORITY.
AND A VENEZUELAN OFFICIAL WHO CONDEMNED U.S. ACTIONS.
THE ARTICLE DOESN’T INCLUDE A SINGLE VOICE OR STATEMENT FROM A REPUBLICAN WHO PUBLICLY DEFENDED THE STRIKES.
THE AP **EMPHASIZED SCHIFF’S OPPOSITION IN THIS BOLDED SUBHEADLINE THAT READS – “CONGRESSMAN SAYS TRUMP’S AUTHORITY IN THIS MATTER IS LIMITED.”
BUT THERE WAS NO BALANCING SUBHEADLINE FOR A CONGRESSMAN WHO WOULD SAY TRUMP’S AUTHORITY IN THIS MATTER IS JUSTIFIED.
WE SAW THE SAME FORM OF VIEWPOINT OMISSION IN NBC’S NIGHTLY COVERAGE.
[NBC NEWS]
“but there are mounting questions tonight about the legality of these operations.”
THIS DOUBT OVER THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY CONTINUED…
WITH THE REPORTER ONLY EMPHASIZING VIEWPOINTS THAT QUESTION THE LEGALITY OF THE STRIKES.
[NBC NEWS]
“but there’s growing controversy tonight over the legality of the u.s. Strikes on those boats, with some members of congress, including republicans, demanding answers.”
THE STORY NEVER OFFERED VOICES WHO SAY THE PRESIDENT IS ON SOLID LEGAL GROUND – IT ALSO DIDN’T EXPLAIN THE WHITE HOUSE’S LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE STRIKES – ONLY SKEPTICISM OVER THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY WAS AMPLIFIED IN THIS STORY.
WHILE THIS IS IN THE REALM OF BIAS BY VIEWPOINT OMISSION
THERE IS ANOTHER FORM OF MEDIA BIAS IN THIS STORY.
ONE THAT – AFTER 40 PLUS EPISODES OF BIAS BREAKDOWN –
WE HAVEN’T TALKED ABOUT HERE BEFORE.
IT’S BIAS BY “SOURCE ATTRIBUTION OMISSION.”
AND IT’S A **VERY IMPORTANT TYPE OF MEDIA BIAS TO CALL IT.
BECAUSE AS A JOURNALIST –
I’M NOT SUPPOSED TO TELL YOU THINGS AND EXPECT YOU TO JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
AS A JOURNALIST – I’M SUPPOSED TO TELL YOU THE FACTS –
AND **CITE WHERE I’M GETTING THAT INFORMATION FROM.
MEDIA WATCHDOG GROUP ALLSIDES – CALLS THIS OUT – WORD FOR WORD IN AN EXAMPLE UNDER THEIR DEFINITION – THEY SAY “Reporters will write that “immigration opponents say,” “critics say,” or “supporters of the bill noted” without identifying who these sources are. While “critics say” or “supporters say” can be an easy way to paraphrase, readers should note when journalists fail to back this up with specifics.”
IN THIS CASE –
NBC – ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS – INSIDE THIS ONE REPORT – SAY BROADLY “REPUBLICANS SAY THIS” – WITHOUT EVER IDENTIFYING — ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN.
[NBC NEWS]
“Both democratic and republican members of congress are pushing for more answers about the president’s plans.”
“some members of congress including republicans, demanding answers.”
“republican lawmakers were upset briefers were unable to answer questions about the legal basis for the operations.”
THE LARGE MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS ARE BACKING THE PRESIDENT.
THIS RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE FORCED THE PRESIDENT TO SEEK CONGRESS’ APPROVAL FOR ANY FURTHER MILITARY ACTION AGAINST VENEZUELA.
BUT IT FAILED 48 TO 51 EARLIER THIS MONTH.
OUT OF 53 REPUBLICAN SENATORS – ONLY TWO OF THEM – SENATOR RAND PAUL OF KENTUCKY AND SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI OF ALASKA – WHO HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF BREAKING RANKS WITH REPUBLICANS – WERE THE ONLY TWO GOP SENATORS WHO SIDED WITH DEMOCRATS – VOTING TRUMP NEEDED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.
BUT FOR NBC TO “PARAPHRASE” THE OPPOSITION BY BROADLY SAYING “EVEN REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS” ARE DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY –
TECHNICALLY – IT’S ACCURATE – BECAUSE THERE IS SOME REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION.
BUT – IT’S MISLEADING.
THE STORY PAINTS THE PICTURE OF THE PRESIDENT’S OWN PARTY QUESTIONING HIS AUTHORITY –
WHEN REALLY – IT’S TWO REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO HAVE HAD OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM.
BUT YOU WOULDN’T KNOW IT BY NBC’S REPORT – BECAUSE THEY VAGUELY LUMP ALL REPUBLICANS IN – INSTEAD OF IDENTIFYING THE SOURCES OF OPPOSITION – RAND PAUL AND LISA MURKOWSKI.
THE NEW YORK TIMES ALSO FELL INTO THIS SAME SORT OF MEDIA BIAS IN THEIR WRITE UP FOLLOWING THE FIFTH VENEZUELA BOAT STRIKE.
THE TIMES WROTE – “Since Mr. Trump and his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, started the operation last month, a broad range of legal specialists have called the premeditated and summary extrajudicial killings illegal.”
THE TIMES THEN REPORTED “THEY” NOTED THE MILITARY CANNOT LAWFULLY TARGET CIVILIANS –
BUT THE JOURNALIST NEVER IDENTIFIES WHO “THEY” ARE – ONLY BROADLY CALLING THEM “LEGAL SPECIALISTS” – BUT THERE ARE NO QUOTES FROM ANY SPECIFIC “LEGAL SPECIALIST” IN THE ENTIRE STORY.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF BIAS BY SOURCE OMISSION.
WE’RE ABOUT TO GET INTO SOME OF THE KEY FACTS OF THIS STORY –
BUT BEFORE I WRAP UP THE MEDIA BIAS PORTION OF THIS EPISODE –
I JUST WANT TO REITERATE SOMETHING HERE.
ANYONE WHO WORKS WITH ME IN THIS NEWSROOM –
KNOWS THAT I APPROACH THE USE OF THE WORD “EXPERT” WITH GREAT CAUTION.
I FEEL LIKE THIS TERM IS THROWN AROUND SO LOOSELY IN THE INDUSTRY –
AND IT GIVES PEOPLE A SENSE OF AUTHORITY. BY CALLING SOMEONE AN “EXPERT” – IT CAN FEEL LIKE EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS AUTOMATICALLY CREDIBLE OR FACTUAL.
NOW DON’T GET ME WRONG – I DO HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE IN WHATEVER GIVEN FIELD OF STUDY.
THERE IS A LEVEL OF EXPERTISE THAT DESERVES RECOGNITION.
BUT JUST AS WE’VE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE MEDIA CAN PUSH A CONCLUSION BASED OFF OF WHAT “LEGAL ANALYSTS” OR “LEGAL EXPERTS” HAVE TO SAY –
IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER – “EXPERTS” – HAVE OPINIONS TOO.
AND WE SAW THIS DYNAMIC OFF THE TOP OF THE SHOW –
FOR EXAMPLE – MSNBC INTERVIEWING A FORMER ARMY CAPTAIN –
AND FOX NEWS INTERVIEWING – A FORMER U.S. NAVY CAPTAIN.
THEY CAN BOTH BE SEEN AS EXPERTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE MILITARY CAREERS.
BUT EACH HAD OPPOSING TAKEAWAYS OVER THE LEGALITY OF THE STRIKES.
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW EXPERTS CAN HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS AND TAKEAWAYS –
AND HOW THE PARTISAN MEDIA – CAN USE EXPERTS TO REINFORCE THEIR POLITICAL SIDE.
OKAY JUMPING OFF MY SOAPBOX NOW – THAT’S JUST SOMETHING I FEEL VERY PASSIONATELY ABOUT THAT I WANT TO BRING SOME AWARENESS TO.
STAY WITH ME – LET’S GET TO SOME OF THE QUICK FACTS OF THIS STORY.
WE’RE GOING TO BACK UP PRIOR TO THE SERIES OF BOAT STRIKES.
THE DAY OF HIS INAUGURATION – PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER “DESIGNATING CARTELS AS FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.”
FAST FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER SECOND – THE U.S. MILITARY SAYS IT CONDUCTED STRIKES AGAINST A “DRUG-CARRYING BOAT” IN THE CARIBBEAN OPERATED BY “NARCO-TERRORISTS.”
KEEP THAT LANGUAGE – AND DATE OF SEPTEMBER SECOND – IN MIND.
STRIKES WOULD CONTINUE.
THEN – DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER – CONGRESS WAS NOTIFIED IN A MEMO THAT THE U.S. WAS ENGAGED IN A “NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT” WITH NARCO-TERRORISTS THAT WERE CLASSIFIED AS “UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS” IN THE MEMO.
THIS IS LANGUAGE OUR WAR REPORTER RYAN ROBERTSON SAYS CARRIES BIG LEGAL AND STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS.
[RYAN ROBERTSON]
“by calling them unlawful combatants the white house is putting these suspected drug smugglers in the same category as al qaeda or isis terrorists.”
HE’S RIGHT.
IT’S THE SAME LANGUAGE GEORGE BUSH USED TO DESCRIBE AL QAEDA TERRORISTS.
THE TERMINOLOGY – AND EARLIER DESIGNATION OF DRUG CARTELS AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS – UNLOCKED THE WHITE HOUSE’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ENVOKE HIS AUTHORITY GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
[White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt]
“This is pursuant to his constitutional authority as commander in chief and the chief executive to conduct foreign relations.”
THERE IS A SORT OF “CHECKS AND BALANCE” TO THIS POWER –
KNOWN AS THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION.
A PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO CALL MILITARY SHOTS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL HAS LONG BEEN DEBATED AND SCRUTINIZED UNDER SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIONS.
SOMETHING CNN POINTED OUT IN THEIR COVERAGE.
[CNN]
“The justification for treating them the way that we the u.s. Treated isis or al qaeda, obviously we discussed a lot of issues like this during the obama years when he increased the use of drones to strike individuals like anwar al-awlaki who the american born al qaeda cleric.”
THAT WAS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF PREVIOUS CONTROVERSY.
THIS SORT OF “CHECKS AND BALANCE” THROUGH THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION COMES WITH AN EXPIRATION CLOCK FROM THE TIME THE PRESIDENT ENVOKES ARTICLE 2.
SOMETHING EVEN POINTED OUT BY A CNN GUEST WHO WAS AGAINST THE BOAT STRIKES.
[CNN]
There is a war powers act which requires the termination of such military operations if the president hasn’t received affirmative authority from congress. That clock started on september second with the first strike and so it should expire in the first week in november.”
SO UNDER THIS WAR POWERS LAW – THE PRESIDENT NEEDS CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL 60 DAYS AFTER THE FIRST STRIKE TO CONTINUE MILITARY ACTION IN THE CARIBBEAN.
WHILE CONGRESS COULD INTERVENE NOW THROUGH RESOLUTIONS, REPUBLICANS HAVE SO FAR VOTED TO STRIKE THOSE DOWN TO LET THE PRESIDENT CONTINUE STRIKES UNDER HIS ARTICLE II AUTHORITY.
BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THE DEBATE IS OVER –
AS LAWMAKERS AND SOME MILITARY AND LEGAL EXPERTS CONTINUE TO DISCUSS HOW THE PRESIDENT HAS USED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND TERROR GROUP LABELS – TO JUSTIFY THE STRIKES.
AS OUR RYAN ROBERTSON AGAIN SHOWED US IN HIS STORY – WHICH OFFERED – **BOTH PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONFLICT.
[RYAN ROBERTSON]
“these are civilians and if there’s one thing we learned…is that we don’t attack civilians. I thought when i read about this that it was wrong to do that.”
“this administration has designated cartels as a foreign terrorist organization. That has given them lawful right – atleast from an american perspective, to go after these orgnaizations who the administration has said is in armed conflict with the united states.
I KNOW I LEARNED A LOT WHILE RESEARCHING THIS STORY.
I THINK IT’S A PRETTY COMPLEX ISSUE – BUT THE FACTS ARE OUT THERE FOR US TO LEARN THIS AND COMPREHEND IT.
GOOD JOURNALISM MEANS INFORMING THE PUBLIC ABOUT CURRENT EVENTS, OFFERING MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON HOT-BUTTON ISSUES, AND PROVIDING SOURCES AND CITATIONS FOR EVERYTHING WE REPORT TO BETTER EQUIP **YOU.
EVEN IN AN AGE OF WIDESPREAD MEDIA BIAS AND DISTRUST –
I STILL BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF GOOD JOURNALISM WHEN TAKEN BACK TO THE BASICS.
YOU JUST HAVE TO SIFT THROUGH THE MEDIA NOISE AND NARRATIVES TO FIND IT.
AND THAT’S YOUR BIAS BREAKDOWN.
I FEEL LIKE I’VE TALKED A LOT THIS EPISODE!
I HOPE YOU’RE STILL HERE WITH ME!
IF YOU’RE NEW HERE THEN WELCOME TO THE CREW!
IF YOU’RE RETURNING –
THANKS SO MUCH FOR COMING BACK!
NO MATTER WHERE YOU’RE WATCHING US –
I’M GLAD YOU’RE HERE.
IF YOU’D LIKE TO BE THE FIRST NOTIFIED ABOUT NEW EPISODES DROPPING –
IT’S EASY TO DO.
JUST DOWNLOAD THE SAN MOBILE APP AND SIGN UP FOR NOTIFICATIONS FOR “BIAS BREAKDOWN”.
AND YOU CAN ALSO SIGN UP TO GET ALERTS FOR RYAN’S PODCAST CALLED “WEAPONS AND WARFARE.”
AS YOU JUST SAW IN THESE PAST FEW SNIPPETS – HE DOES A GREAT JOB BREAKING DOWN BIG MILITARY STORIES.
YOU CAN ALSO FIND US ACROSS THE PODCAST PLATFORM SPECTRUM.
WE HAD A COLLEGE PROFESSOR COMMENT RECENTLY ON SPOTIFY THAT THEY WERE SHOWING OUR BIAS BREAKDOWN EPISODES TO THEIR STUDENTS AND THAT WAS SO AWESOME TO HEAR.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION OVER ON SPOTIFY –
OR FIND US ON YOUTUBE.
Y’ALL ARE MAKING THIS FUN FOR ME AND THE TEAM TO LOG INTO YOUTUBE AND SEE HUNDREDS OF YOU COMMENTING YOUR THOUGHTS AND FEEDBACK ON OUR PAST EPISODES.
I LOVE TO SEE THAT SORT OF INTERACTION AND COMMUNITY BUILDING SO I HOPE THAT WE CAN KEEP IT GOING!
GIVE US A COMMENT, LIKE, OR SUBSCRIBE TO KEEP US GROWING IN THE ALGORITHMS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO OUR VIDEO EDITOR IAN KENNEDY.
AND OUR GRAPHICS DESIGNER ALI CALDWELL.
THANK **YOU FOR WATCHING AND FOR SHARING WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
AND I WILL SEE YA NEXT TIME!
