Readers See Political Bias for One Side or the Other; Journalists Don’t

One of the greatest responsibilities of a free press in a democratic society is to inform readers of the day’s news in a fair and impartial manner, contributing to their becoming knowledgeable participants in the dialogue of the moment. The post-presidential election period provided this newspaper with an historic and crucial challenge to fulfill that role.

Throughout the course of this contest, many passionate and angry readers suggested The Times failed because coverage was biased. Each allegation was examined by me or an editor in the Readers’ Representative office, and each of us also read The Times’ coverage carefully. While in the past I have judged this newspaper on occasion to have strayed from its responsibilities, in this case I came to the conclusion that there is no question but that The Times distinguished itself.

The newspaper presented a comprehensive daily report compiled by more than 100 reporters, researchers, editors, graphic artists and photographers who I believe accurately conveyed the facts while putting the compelling story into perspective for readers, producing more than 530 election stories since Nov. 8. The newspaper also provided pages of space for reprinting texts of court decisions and statements by George W. Bush and Al Gore. And more than 30 journalists produced a comprehensive package of stories about systemic problems in the nation’s voting procedures.

Given the highly partisan nature of the election story, it is no surprise that there was criticism by advocates of Bush or Gore who objected to headlines, the choice of words in stories, the “slant” of an article or overall coverage that they saw as biased against their candidate. The vast majority of the complaints were not specific.

While a word or a phrase that could be perceived as biased could slip by the many editors who read each article, I saw no conspiracy of bias, as alleged by some readers. Perceptions of bias can be expected of readers who have invested much energy and enthusiasm into supporting and believing in the rightness of their candidate or cause. In many cases, they lose objectivity themselves and want to condemn the messenger. Interestingly, a single story can be seen as biased by readers of both sides, or as totally objective by others.

Take the two calls the Readers’ Representative office received Dec. 12: “I’m calling about the liberal kinds of reporting of your paper. It’s ultra-left. Everything is from the Democratic perspective.” And, “I am totally disgusted with the coverage Bush is getting over Gore because I think it’s unfair . . . The media has promoted the notion that Bush has won the election and he hasn’t.” Other readers later complained, “Are you working for Gore?” and, “You seem to be in the pocket of Republicans.”

A review of the record supports the caller who said, “I appreciate and support the fact that you are taking an objective and neutral position on this election dispute--to take a critical view and not be biased is very important.” Coverage of this story clearly demonstrates that The Times’ political reporters and others covering any campaign are able to suspend personal views and opinions in reporting a story, as difficult as that is for some readers to believe.

The general sense of the newsroom, particularly of the entire staff involved in producing the post-election newspapers, was that this was one heck of a story. Leading up to the election, and covering its aftermath, political writers Mark Barabak and Ronald Brownstein, seemed thrilled by the closeness of the contest.

Barabak said one recent story he wrote was criticized as biased by both a Gore and a Bush supporter, confirming the balance of the piece. A political writer for 20 years, Barabak described his craft as akin to following a recipe, with bias ruining it: “Putting together a story is like baking a cake. You put in a teaspoon of this and a cup of that. And if you want to, you can put in five tablespoons of salt and three cups of sugar, but it will taste funny and not come out right.” And since every Page 1 story is read by a minimum of six editors, that would be a lot of people left gagging. It rarely happens.

Barabak said he, like other political writers, will labor over a specific word, asking a colleague if it might seem pejorative. Sometimes he’s called his editor after going home to change a word after thinking about it more.

Barabak was one of many Times reporters and editors who worked 70-hour weeks leading up to the election and were then propelled into covering its aftermath. Like Barabak, Brownstein and legal analysts Henry Weinstein (a lawyer) and David Savage (author of a book on the U.S. Supreme Court) worked all but two or three out of the 40 postelection days. Together they produced more than 120 stories, most for Page 1.

Was it worth it? Said Barabak: “Two or three nights post-election, I called my 9-year-old to tell her I wouldn’t be home before she went to sleep because I had to write. I explained that this had never happened before, that it was like writing history. She replied, ‘Wow, it’s really an honor, isn’t it?’ ” Barabak, who could have been responding for the entire staff of Times journalists, replied, “Yes, it really is.”