Lana Whited at Roanoke.Com

Tell all the truth but tell it slant–
Success in Circuit lies.
–Emily Dickinson, poem 1129

"Tell all the truth but tell it slant" may have seemed like good advice to poet Emily Dickinson, but it doesn’t work for news coverage. One of the cardinal sins of journalism is presenting the news with bias. This week, I took a little "slant" reading from the local television stations.

Wednesday was a particularly big news day. Élian González left for Cuba, and the Supreme Court issued important rulings dealing with abortion, homosexuality, and separation of church and state.

The abortion decisions were the big story on most news programs. I chose the secondary story about the Boy Scouts’ exclusion of homosexuals for my sample because the segments were shorter than the lead story, and I could flip channels and catch all three local stations’ coverage. I chose a controversial story because conflict provides a good test for bias.

Where this particular story is concerned, WSLS (channel 10, an NBC affiliate) provided by far the best example of slant. On the six o’clock broadcast, WSLS aired a segment which began with an announcement of the decision and then cut to a reporter at a Boy Scout Camp in Pulaski.There followed on-camera statements from two male Scout leaders and two female parents, all of whom supported the Supreme Court’s decision. One woman cited the Bible and called homosexuality "an abomination."

Toward the end of the long segment, just as I was wondering if WSLS would provide any balance, the reporter referred to a 16-year-old Scout who said the Supreme Court’s decision would allow the Boy Scouts to teach boys intolerance. Although I was glad to see that WSLS had the good sense not to show the 16-year-old, the 10- to 15-second reference to him did little to balance the four supporters who preceded it.

How hard would it have been for the WSLS reporter to call up the local chapter of PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) for a reaction? WSLS’s parent network, NBC, aired an interview with a Lambda Legal Defense Fund official during its 6:30 broadcast. Lambda may not have an office in Roanoke, but PFLAG has a local group, and WSLS has a telephone.

My point is that the station needed a spokesperson for an official organization promoting gay rights, not just the opinion of a private citizen. After all, the reporter talked to both Boy Scout leaders AND parents of scouts.

I doubt that WSLS’s problem was having to cover the story hastily. I heard about the high court’s decision on NPR before lunch Wednesday. Besides, if pressed for time, WSLS could have cut one or two of the pro-decision interviews. Even then, the presentation would have been slanted in the decision’s favor.

WDBJ-7, the CBS affiliate, aired a briefer but more balanced story. Reported by Jean Jadhon, the story include an explanation of the decision, followed by a Boy Scouts spokesman and the promise of an interview at 11 p.m. with a gay Roanoke attorney who is a former Scout leader. The Boy Scout spokesman clip was slightly longer than the interview-at-11 preview, but the promise of an interview does suggest that WDBJ made a concerted attempt to get the other side of the story.

I missed the local ABC affiliate, WSET-13, at 6 p.m. because I was busy flipping channels, but I caught the 11 p.m. broadcast. The brief (about thirty seconds) report consisted of an explanation of the decision by the WSET anchor, followed by a synopsis of James Dale’s story, and a reaction from Bill Clinton, who opposed the court’s ruling.

This segment was weighted in a direction opposite WSLS’s, and while it’s customary for news organizations to report a development and show the reaction of only those who oppose it, balance is better because it provides a complete picture.

We should note that WSET’s coverage also lacked a local angle, which interviews could accomplish. Failing to localize a story isn’t as unethical as slanting it, but people find news more interesting when its effect on their community is shown.

In the 11 p.m. broadcast slot, WDBJ’s coverage was far superior. After the anchor introduced the story, Teresa Hamilton reported the ruling. This was followed by the interview promised during the 6 p.m. broadcast.

Sam Garrison, a Roanoke attorney and former Scout leader who is gay, gave a very mixed reaction. He claimed to be personally "disappointed" but thought it good that the court said organizations can determine their own membership. Because of it, Garrison said, "a gay group also cannot be forced to have Jerry Falwell as its program chair."

The WDBJ segment ended with a comment from a local Scout leader, who explained why the Boy Scouts have pressed this issue. Yes, the interview with Garrison consumed more time, but the attorney’s reaction was quite moderate.

WSLS aired a brief report read by anchor John Carlin who summarized the decision and then paraphrased the reactions of the four interviewees seen at 6 p.m. WSLS then repeated a portion of a parent interview from the earlier broadcast; the clip featured a mother who said those who find the decision discriminatory are "nitpicking." The segment ended with the same reference to the 16-year-old scout heard at 6.

"A lot of parents agree with the Supreme Court’s decision," read Carlin. I think he meant a lot of parents AT THE BOY SCOUT CAMP. I wonder how hard WSLS tried to find Scout parents who disagreed with the ruling. I know several who would.

I should offer a few concessions. First, it probably isn’t fair to judge how objective a news station is from one story on one particular day. To find out whether WSLS presents news with a more conservative slant thatn WDBJ and whether WSET usually lacks a local angle, perform your own analysis. Watch one station while taping another, and, if possible, ask a friend to tape the third. Compare the same stories on each station, especially in terms of how much balance is provided. You’ll quickly see some differences.

Secondly, much of what I’ve said about slant applies to conflict stories but not necessarily to news events. For example, if the local gay bookstore were robbed, news stations wouldn’t be obligated to go out and find someone who was happy about it. But when controversy is part of the story, you should see at least two sides.

Finally, some news organizations slant content by decisions about regular features. The Roanoke Times, for example, has a long-running "Outdoors" column which is often about hunting and fishing, but I doubt seriously the newspaper could be persuaded to run a regular column about animal rights issues. When Bill Cochran or Mark Taylor writes that a particular initiative is good for wildlife, readers would do well to remember that they’re getting only a pro-hunting perspective.

Avoiding slant is important because we sometimes act based on what we learn from the news. Voting is a good example. As the election nears, think about whether the station you watch presents candidates objectively. Does your station seem to be "for" a particular candidate? That’s a sure sign of trouble. Also, older children and teens learn about issues from news programs, and if presented with only one perspective, a young person’s brain can become a narrow place.

With any story involving conflict, it’s important that your news station give you both sides. If it doesn’t, switch the channel.

Leave the slant to the poets.

Does your news have a slant?