A PRIMER ON HOW TO READ THE LOS ANGELES TIMES — LESSON THREE: BEWARE OF OPINIONS ATTRIBUTED TO “CRITICS” OR “SOME” OR “MANY”
Today is Lesson Three in my primer on reading the Los Angeles Times without succumbing to its liberal bias. (The first two installments can be found here and here.) Today’s installment will likely be the final installment for a few days. So much bias, so little time.
Today’s tip: Beware of opinions attributed to “critics” or “some” or “many.”
How many times have you read a news story which says something like this?
Although the administration defends its proposed cuts as humane, some say that the cuts are unconscionable.
You have probably read sentences like this so many times that they don’t sound strange any more. But think about it: what is the relevance of the fact that “some say” anything? After all, “some say” that Elvis is still alive. “Many say” that astrology is infallible. And some “critics” will tell you that the world is flat.
So why are you reading about what “some say” in the paper? Obviously, the reporter and/or the editors think it’s important for you to hear this particular opinion. Often, words like “some” or “many” can be replaced with the phrase “Times editors” with no appreciable change in meaning. When you see such locutions, you should ask yourself: who exactly is saying this? Is the contrary view being portrayed fairly? Does the article have an obvious spin? Is that spin consistent with what “some say”?
The use of phraseologies like “many say” lends the opinions a certain weight, suggesting that they are held by a number of potentially unbiased folks out there. The opinions expressed by “some” or by “critics” tend to be reported uncritically and sympathetically. Meanwhile, when interviewees say things that support a conservative position, they tend to be labeled as representatives of a particular cause, politician, or branch of government, so their bias is always clear.
Once you become aware of the phenomenon, and you start to look for it, you will be amazed at how often the opinions expressed by “some” or “many” or “critics” are left-leaning opinions. For example, here are some things that “some” or “critics” have said in the last two or three days in the pages of the Times:
The Philadelphia dinner was the third instance in which Scalia’s outside activities have created what some say is an appearance of partiality on issues before the court.
Critics say an accused terrorist’s role in Iraq attacks is exaggerated, noting weak evidence.
And the body of the story has this quote:
The focus on Zarqawi is part of a political strategy to portray the terrorism threat as essentially foreign and rooted in the Al Qaeda network, thereby downplaying the significance of Iraqi insurgents, critics say.
Critics called these ads “unconscionable,” “inappropriate” and “in poor taste.”
Another said:
The critics called the spots insensitive and offensive.
Critics say that is because the corporations, while performing good works, are not required to focus directly on improving tribal conditions.
Federal wildlife officials also have failed to act despite decades of evidence chronicling the decline, critics say.
You get the idea. The moral is: you should be cautious whenever you see a phrase like “many believe” or “critics say.” Phrases like this should function like a flashing red neon sign saying: “Caution: leftist viewpoint likely. Opinion may be shared by newspaper. Scrutinize carefully.”
That is always good advice, when reading the L.A. Times or any other newspaper.
(Cross-posted at Oh, That Liberal Media.)
Or as Reuters puts it, “analysts.”
How did you like Sunday’s obit for the trust fund socialist? Half a page! Isn’t that their Ideal Man?
Comment by PJ — 3/9/2004 @ 8:44 am
I like your expose of the Times’ use of “some,” “many,” and “critics.” Another favorite term is “experts.” Also The Dogtrainer likes to use passive voice as a way of concealing Times’ staffers as the subject of a sentence. “It is believed” or “It is said” being examples of this technique.
Comment by Stu707 — 3/9/2004 @ 10:57 am
Discrimination in U.C. Admissions!!!
That’s what you’d think if you read the headline in this morning’s Los Angeles Times: UC Officials Note Racial Disparity in Admissions Perhaps, Patterico needs to add another to his list of one…two…three…rules for reading the Los Angeles Times……
Trackback by BoiFromTroy — 3/9/2004 @ 11:16 am
Dan Rather is a master at this…watch his broadcast (sorry, but it’s necessary to observe the enemy to know how to counter) and see how many times “some say” and “many say” and “critics say” Bush and his policies suck
Comment by Frank G — 3/9/2004 @ 5:56 pm
Patterico - new editor of The LA Times.
Read this posting by Patterico, then click back and scroll down and read a headline I’ve posted from today’s LA…
Trackback by PrestoPundit — 3/11/2004 @ 4:06 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:My Dhimm…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 3/23/2004 @ 9:13 pm
The Council Has Spoken!
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are 20 Questions I’d Like to Ask John F*** Kerry…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 3/25/2004 @ 9:52 pm
The Council Has Spoken!
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are 20 Questions I’d Like to Ask John F*** Kerry…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 3/25/2004 @ 10:01 pm
The Council Has Spoken!
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are 20 Questions I’d Like to Ask John F*** Kerry…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 3/25/2004 @ 11:15 pm
The Watcher Teaches Me Yet More
Boy! That Watcher is a tough task master! But, it seems, he requires no less from himself. Apparently, he hand - codes his whole blog [the thought of which just boggles my tiny mind] Now, it seems that he sent…
Trackback by e-Claire — 4/14/2004 @ 1:09 pm
[...] ;Ascribed to the Senate leadership,” eh? By whom? It’s always good advice to
Pingback by Patterico's Pontifications » L.A. Times On Memos Being “Ascribed” – and on Reporting Push Polls as Legitimate — 3/30/2005 @ 6:17 am
[...] ;Ascribed to the Senate leadership,” eh? By whom? It’s always good advice to
Pingback by Patterico's Pontifications » L.A. Times On Memos Being “Ascribed” – and on Reporting Push Polls as Legitimate — 3/30/2005 @ 6:21 am
[...] Ah, critics. Is there anything they don’t know? [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » The Incredible Anti-Israel Bias of the L.A. Times — 8/2/2006 @ 12:33 am
[...] And now the infamous “some critics” have their say: [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » L.A. Times: Attack Ads Almost Entirely a GOP Phenomenon — Except for When Dems Must Fight Back — 9/26/2006 @ 6:51 am
[...] But there is a meme to nurture here, and the MSM will obediently set about to doing it. It begins with the Washington Post piece essentially putting a positive (and dishonest) spin on a piece of San Francisco legislation in order to promote of bit of potential Ted Kennedy legislation. It then moves to the cable and morning programs (my guess is that Lou Dobbs gets in on this next) and then you will hear about it from the three legacy news programs, right about the same time as the Washington Post and New York Times editorial boards issue their respective approvals of Kennedy’s program. You will rarely, of ever, hear the other side of this issue, and it is entirely doubtful that you will get the true facts. Instead you will hear a great deal of “some say” and “by most estimates” followed by statements of alleged fact that are usually wrong or, at least, contentious enough to require a rebuttal. (Patterico has compiled a useful manual on such techniques for your edification). The problem here is that there is a meme being nurtured. There is no “news” being reported, but instead, an idealized view being sold disguised as accepted fact and received wisdom. [...]
Pingback by A Second Hand Conjecture » How A Meme Grows — 12/11/2006 @ 1:28 pm