"Left-leaning" or "nonpartisan"?

Why would a Times article call the American Enterprise Institute "conservative-leaning," but not refer in the same article to the politics of the Mike Mansfield Foundation? Why do stories refer to the Brookings Institution variously as "centrist," "conservative" and "nonpartisan"?

Some readers have an answer to the inconsistent application of labels: They think it shows bias, saying it suggests that the reporter believes that one is mainstream and thus needs no label, while the other needs to be identified as somewhere relative to that norm.

The question was most recently raised on the April 23 article about a CIA report to Congress alleging ties between North Korea and Syria. Reader Norman Nathan of Los Angeles noted, "The article identifies the AEI as 'right-leaning' but it does not identify the Mike Mansfield Foundation as a 'left-leaning organization.' And the story gives no context as to the reasoning." In a follow-up phone call Nathan said he thought it showed liberal bias, and that furthermore, "I would have thought there would be a policy, a standard, consistent way of identifying foundations."

The April 23 article on North Korea-Syria ties reported that "disclosure of the relationship to the committees is likely to bring criticism from conservative lawmakers" who already believe that the U.S. has been too gentle with the government in Pyongyang. The story went on: "Danielle Pletka, a vice president of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the congressional briefings were simply a step the administration needed to take to move forward." Here's the reference to the foundation: "'You'll have some outcry, but I doubt there are enough people on Capitol Hill even paying attention to oppose it,' said Gordon Flake, who follows the issue as executive director of the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation and is a critic of such a pact."

This particular story was by Paul Richter, who says he agrees with the readers.

Richter wrote in an e-mail, "I'm glad to be asked about this because I've been unhappy for a long time that we unfailingly identify the right-wing ones as 'conservative'  and usually say nothing about the center and left-wing ones." In this case, though, the reporter says that the "conservative-leaning" wasn't his: "I didn't identify AEI one way or another; I think it was added somewhere during editing." In any case, Richter points to the fact that Flake is in the same corner as the conservatives cited: "The man who runs the Mansfield Foundation, Gordon Flake, is a Republican, though I take it a moderate one; his cousin is Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). He OPPOSES the deal we've got going with North Korea that the liberals like."

It's not clear where in the editing process the words "conservative-leaning" were added, but the editor who oversees the last line of defense -- the copy desk that gives stories a final edit before they are published -- also says the reader is right in this case. Tim Lynch, who is in charge of the National and Foreign copy desks, explained, "I think that labels perform a reader service, IF they’re mutually agreed upon by the reporter and subsequent editors and IF they’re evenly applied. Neither IF was applied here, unfortunately."

Lynch calls it "the equity issue" -- the need to name all affiliations, or none, in the same story. Lynch adds, "I lean toward identifying group's leanings (liberal, conservative, centrist), but that call should be made by the reporter in conjunction with editors." He adds of one oft-used label: "'Nonpartisan' doesn't necessarily mean that a group does not have a political bent or philosophy."

Richter doesn't know if labeling is that easy: "An important consideration is that a lot of these think tanks have liberals and conservatives: e.g., Brookings has Peter Rodman, a former top official of the Rumsfeld Pentagon, and Carlos Pascual, a former diplomat who is a critic of the administration's approach to Iraq. Center for Strategic & International Studies,  Council on Foreign Relations are the same way. Carnegie Endowment, predominantly liberal, has the neocon Bob Kagan. So if you identify Brookings as center-left that just misleads the reader if you then quote Rodman. My preference is to make clear the view of the analyst on the issue in question -- e.g., say that Pletka of AEI opposes the North Korea deal. You could identify Rodman as a strong supporter of the Iraq invasion, and so forth. But I think the conservative readers have a good point on this."

National Editor Scott Kraft gives another reason to stay away from labels: "Some think tanks, in recent years, have moved away from their ideological underpinnings and it's more difficult to label them. It's sometimes useful for readers to know where a think tank is coming from, so labeling is nice, when it fits. But it doesn't always fit."

When it comes to the "centrist," "conservative" and "nonpartisan" Brookings, Kraft says, "We should probably not be labeling it. Brookings is one of the think tanks that has made an effort to bring in other points of view and become less ideological. For some think tanks, that is because they don't want to be ideological. But my sense is that there are also two other factors at work. These places want to keep a high profile and, like colleges and big lobbying firms, they are trying to bring in big names (of all ideological stripes) for their star power. They also may think that broadening their ideological representation will help make sure that they won't be shut out of the country's conversation when they're out of power. So we should probably be more careful about using labels, especially with think tanks that have brought in folks with more varied ideological backgrounds."

Finally, editors will try to keep a sharper eye out for the labels, says Melissa McCoy, the deputy managing editor who oversees copy desks and other matters of style and standards in the writing. [This corrects McCoy's title, which earlier was given incorrectly as assistant managing editor.] "The reporter’s assessment is right on point. We should try, if there is any labeling necessary, to stick with the individuals involved. We should always keep in mind that any labeling is only to help the reader understand the subject’s background and viewpoint on a particular topic. That’s the reason we’ve done it historically, in part because readers can’t be expected to know the motivation, background or political bent of every person we quote, and analysts get paid to think and pontificate on important issues. If we feel the reader would benefit from some guidance, and we stick with describing the individual’s views, writings or public statements, we can offer a fairer depiction for everyone.

“There is no doubt that we need to set better standards on this issue, and we will.”

Comments

[Al]

If would also be useful if the new, clearer standards were made public.

[Voiceguy in LA]

Apart from the specific issue raised here, which I will touch on in a moment, I find it astonishing that the L.A. Times cannot identify *who* made editorial alterations in the process of preparing a story.

If this is true, two bad results flow from it:

(a) There can be no accountability for changes that prove to be problematic; and

(b) There can be no counseling, feedback, training, or other follow-up with anyone in the editorial process who consistently misbehaves in their editorial work.

Stories ought to leave behind a clear and easy-to-follow audit trail. Failure to do so indicates an intent to hide things and avoid accountability.

As for labels, the L.A. Times joins most other mainstream media in conveniently omitting labels other than Republican, right-wing, or conservative. When a political figure is charged with wrongdoing, and that political figure happens to be a Democrat, it is usually impossible to discern that party affiliation until late in the article -- if at all. By contrast, the Republican affiliation of an accused political figure will inevitably be mentioned in the lead sentence. The bias is pervasive and consistent, and I don't expect that to change in my lifetime.

[John W]

The terms "left-leaning" or "liberal" are almost never used in the Mainstream Media, including the L.A. times. This is clearly a bias that needs to be addressed. Also, many times when Democratic politicians are involved in any type of scandal, the papers and news programs usually almost always fail to identify the politician as a Democrat. However, whenever a Republican is involved in any type of scandal the news orgs go out of their way to beat into the public that it was a Republican who got into trouble. Newsbusters.org has a regular feature on this phenomenon called "Name that Party." Almost always it is a Democrate in trouble who is never identified as a Democrat. This should be rectified as well.

[PeteZ]

This is a wonderful turn of events that you would even consider the voices of readers whose opinions have been strangled for so long on your pages.

There exist a myriad of subtle and not so subtle ways that your coverage of current events, politics, editorial pages and in reality, the whole of your institution promotes a biased worldview.

This particular example is simply among the more obvious. The manner in which you use wording to shade the story, the items you choose to include and those you choose to omit, how prominent a certain fact is placed within a story (ie, a scandal involving a Republican may indicate his party in the first few paragraphs or even the headline, for a Democrat it may not appear at all, or may be buried deep into the story.

Day after day, month after month, year after year you have intentionally adopted a smug, pedantic, arrogant and denigrating tone to seep into the stories you put forth, wholly disregarding conservative, moderate, or even divergent worldviews. Your institution represents a very hard left view of the world in which we live and it comes out in every aspect of how you report. For your hardcore supporters, this makes you a safe harbor to ingrain their opinions. However, for the overwhelming majority of people, it is an act in furtherance of denigrating a public trust.

In point of fact, it is a form of censorship through publication. One worldview is given four crooked umpires to call balls and strikes, safe and out, fair or foul. The game is rigged and the outcome preordained.

It is refreshing that you might consider moving even a centimeter toward objectivity, however, for those of us who have seen years of the sleight of hand for which your reporting has become infamous, please forgive us if we watch as this unfolds, with a bit of a jaundiced eye.

[Xrlq]

"'Nonpartisan' doesn't necessarily mean that a group does not have a political bent or philosophy."

No, but that is the clear implication of the word. To most readers, nonpartisan means neutral. Granted, the Brookings Institution and the Mike Mansfield Foundation are not formally affiliated with any political parties, but then again, neither are most conservative think tanks, including AEI. Would the Times ever publish an article citing "the non-partisan American Enterprise Institute" as a source for anything? I think not. Ditto for the non-partisan National Rifle Association, the non-partisan Cato Institute, and so on, ad infinitum. The pattern is clear: anyone can eschew formal party affiliation, but only a left-leaning institution can be "non-partisan."

I say we reserve the loaded word "non-partisan" for the rare instance where the point of contention is an issue relating to the political parties directly, as political parties, and not to the respective ideologies they espouse.

[xray]

Journalists and editors use labels (or omit them) for organizations and people to support their article's story and point of view. One must then consider the political alignment of those journalists and editors to understand their use or omission of labels.

If as polls have indicated, 80%+ of those journalists and editors fall into the liberal side of politics, it is not surprising to see this come through in their articles' stories use of labels. Otherwise, if they were supposed to be truly neutral, we would see the industry publish some pretty strong and consistent standards on how to provide neutrality, along the lines of FASB for the accounting industry.

[redc1c4]

“There is no doubt that we need to set better standards on this issue, and we will.”

i would politely suggest that the Times would have to set "a standard" first, before it could possibly develop a better one. since your editorial policy seems simply to push the internal party line, it might be easier just to admit that you're *not* objective and publish stories any way you like.

that sort of honesty would be refreshing from the MSM, and would even earn grudging admiration from some of your many critics.

[Kevin Murphy]

Non-partisan should mean that the organization's positions are not closely identified with a political party. Ideally, members of both major parties should be represented on the board and fundraising letters should not appeal to partisan sentiment.

Leftist, Rightist, Statist, Libertarian, etc, might all apply to a non-partisan organization as much as to a partisan one.

Having been a member of both CATO and the ACLU, I would say that the former is non-partisan and the latter solidly in the Democratic pocket, judging solely by fundraising mailers.

[nk at Cree Tees]

The terms, or labels if you wish, are "loaded". They should not be used at all by the reporter in the straight story unless the subject describes itself as one such and even then the term should be qualified with "self-described". The terms are really editorial opinions and if the editors feel that that opinion is important to the story they should append a footnote, e.g., "XYZ organization is antidisestablimentarialist -- The Editors".

[tim sesler]

I've subscribed and read the Times for nearly 20 years. And every day, I can quickly point to dozens of these examples. Consult a conservative editor. Or have one of your liberal editors read the Corner every day. They'll soon understand the other side and the issues that conservatives talk about daily.

[joeschmo1of3]

There are very few, if any, "non-partisan" think tanks. Some are conservative, liberal, progressive (extreme left), or libertarian. Each of them have a core value system which is reflected in the issues they study and the tenor of their publications and press releases.

It would also be helpful if all politicians caught up in scandals were identified in the lead paragraph, e.g. D-NJ, then readers wouldn't complain about perceived biases of gotcha stories against conservatives versus positive or down-played stories against liberals.

[driver]

The problem with applying labels: who is to be trusted as a fair arbiter in their application? It's all in the eye of the beholder. Since something like 90% of "mainstream media" folks self-describe as "Democrats," why should anyone take their perspective as fair and balanced?

The answer, I think, is to supply links to web sites of these various groups and think tanks when they are mentioned, and let the very intelligent (but very misunderestimated) common man and woman---the readership---make up their own minds as to where these various groups are coming from. We're not fools, or children, and we resent being treated that way.

Many of us on the, ahem, "conservative" or "libertarian" side of things see such labels applied by you "liberals" as intended to dismiss our opinions without addressing them.

[PaulB]

The word "non-partisan" when used to describe any organization means the reporter agrees with their view. There is no legitimate reason to use that word in describing an organization's view on the world.

While you're at it, the word "non-profit" is also used by reporters to advocate an organization's views without providing information to the reader that enables him to evaluate arguments made. The ACLU, NRA, Chamber of Commerce, and AFL-CIO, to pick a few well known groups are all organizations that are non-partisan and non-profit, but no one would describe any of the above as groups that bring disinterested analysis to the subjects that they are interested in.

[Dave Mastio]

This is one of those issues that has been around forever. I can remember reading pieces just like this one in the early 90s. No matter the good intentions of the folks who get involved in one labeling fracas or another the issue never seems to get fixed for very long.