MSNBC article here
This article is fairly basic and straight forward, reporting on a judge's ruling that the "Redskins" NFL team can continue on with their lawsuit against five individuals who want to change the team name. The facts are reported, and supporting quotes are given.
However, the problem I see with the article is the author's use of words to influence the reader in to thinking a certain way about the situation. From the article, biased language is in bold:
"Yes, you read that right: For now, the Redskins – whose name everyone from President Obama to Sen. John McCain call offensive – can move forward with a suit against a group of Native Americans who take umbrage with the term."
"The Redskins argue against the patent board’s decision with interesting logic, saying the team name wasn’t offensive when the trademarks were registered, between 1967 and 1990. For now, the team’s trademark is in place."
"The debate over the Redskins name seemed to reach a fever pitch last month when “The Daily Show” aired a controversial segment pitting ardent Redskins fans who seemingly saw no issue with the franchise name against Native Americans that did."
The author is clearly biased on this issue, which by itself isn't a bad thing. We are all entitled to our opinions. But interjecting those opinions as a journalist in to your work is crossing the line from honest to dishonest reporting. It puts the author's credibility at stake, as well as the publishing outlet. Journalism should report on the facts and provide context for the readers, not to influence them in one way or another in to taking a certain side on an issue, in this case changing the Redskins name.
I agree. I think it is one thing to have opinions, and another to try and force them on others. This is an especially fine line when one is a journalist. This author does seem to try and impress his feelings on the matter onto the readers. I am a communication major, and when writing news stories, we are always told to stay unbiased. As a journalist, you are supposed to present the facts and let the readers decide their feelings on the matter. This author did not do this. I think this is something that is happening more and more these days. Journalists interject their thoughts into a story, and readers believe they are true because they read them in a news story.
ReplyDelete