Words are very precise building blocks that form the basis for all communicated
ideas. They can hold truths or lies but
are always the products of expression. People express themselves not only through
what they say but also by how they say it. Diction and syntax allow an idea to
be established in any number of ways: some are basic, others are luxuriously
flamboyant, some reveal secondary thoughts, others betray hidden emotions. It’s
like the saying, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A whole sentence
says more than simply what the individual words describe. Bias, in many forms,
is not necessarily explicit in the words that have been used but can be recognized
when seen in the fuller context that the words represent. Journalists do this
by manipulating single words in such a way that whole sentences' meanings are
subtly changed...and sometimes not so subtly.
Key Questions to keep in mind while reading the following examples of selective Word Choice:
- What is the fundamental piece of information being presented?
- Is there an easier or less insinuating way to express that piece of information?
Here are the headlines and lead paragraphs of two articles which came out on
the morning of March 11, 2003. They are covering the same incident:
The New York Times
Iraq forces suspension of U.S. surveillance flights
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -Iraqi fighter jets threatened two American
U-2 surveillance planes, forcing them to return to abort their mission
and return to base, senior U.S. officials said Tuesday.
U.N. Withdraws U-2 Planes
WASHINGTON (AP)-U.N. arms inspectors said Tuesday they had withdrawn
two U-2 reconnaissance planes over Iraq for safety reasons after Baghdad
complained both aircraft were in the air simultaneously.
Complete Articles: available on the Articles page
Word Choice Analysis:Both of these stories are iterating the same
piece of information: 'Surveillance flights in Iraqi air space were ended.'
It is usually the case in journalism that more than one piece of information
is squeezed into each clause. This is done both for stylistic reasons,
and because journalists have a required amount of information that needs
to be fit into limited real estate (time or space). However, as you can
see, the decisions concerning diction, syntax, and what further information
is added can lead to sentences being so altered from the basic idea that
the same exact event can be depicted in two profoundly different ways. In the above example,
the use of the word "forces" vs. "withdraws" and the phrase "Iraqi fighter jets threatened" vs. "Baghdad complained"
impacts the way we read the articles.
Top of Page
Here are hockey game coverage headlines from the two home towns of the opposing
The Denver Post
The Detroit News
|red wings 5, avalanche 3
begins Avs' tumble
|Red Wings 5, Avalanche 3
are too much for Avalanche
Word Choice Analysis:Here we have a humorous example of how Geographic
Bias can play out in word choice. This may seem somewhat of a trite
example, especially since these sports writers do not pretend to be as unbiased
as general news writers, but it serves as a good example to plainly show
the same phenomenon as Example 1.
Top of Page
The following examples are taken from the context of the 2003 conflict in Iraq:
St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
|The Red Cross, one of the few aid groups with staff operating
in Iraq, hopes to negotiate access to the main power station, which is said
to be under control of U.S.-led coalition forces. But neither
local staff nor specialists in neighboring Kuwait have been cleared to go
because of continued clashes.
||Iraq said its troops were battling U.S.-led invasion forces
inside Nassiriya and on the city's outskirts on Tuesday and inflicting heavy
Word Choice Analysis:In many cases, the keywords of a sentence are manipulated
to elicit an editorial comment without the reader being explicitly aware
that an opinion is being stated. In this pair of examples, the difference
of a single word changes the meanings to reflect opposing viewpoints. By
changing the preposition "in" to the word "on," there
is a subtle yet significant difference. In fact, by changing only one letter,
the entire thrust of the military campaign changes from one of fighting
dissidents within the political borders of Iraq to one of aggression against
the entire nation.
Top of Page
This is an excerpt from an article printed on January 16, 2003. This sentence
concerns the reaction of several leading democrats to President Bush's legal
brief concerning the Affirmative Action lawsuit filed against the University
| Democrats who are planning to seek Mr. Bush's job - Sen. Joe Lieberman
of Connecticut, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Sen. John Edwards of North
Carolina, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, and Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont
- expressed their dismay [at Bush's remarks].
Word Choice Analysis:This excerpt provides us with the information that
five democrats disapprove of President Bush's views on Affirmative Action
but it slips in a little more while introducing the subjects of the clause.
This example demonstrates another form of possible editorial bias. How do
you think the identification of these men as potential presidential candidates
affect their credibility as critics of President Bush? The information seems
likely to have come across differently if the author had called them 'Leading
democrats' or identified them in another way.
Top of Page
The examples below are excerpts of two different accounts of the same hockey game:
|The Red Wings played the Flyers last night in a hockey game
and they won 4-3.
||The Red Wings executed a decisive win (4-3) over the tempered
Flyers, in last night’s heated game of ice hockey.
Word Choice Analysis:Here is one final thing to consider. One can fall
into a pattern of looking for biased word choice in every word, every syllable.
Suspicions can arise from an oddly placed semi-colon. What this fabricated
example intends to demonstrate is that not all spurious word choice is biased.
Sometimes non-essential words are used simply to make the language more
colorful. Journalists are not just deceitful word jugglers, conspiring to
make you think what they want you to believe. They are people who are trying
to write to hold onto a job. So, when being critical of word selection,
be sure to keep it in perspective. Sometimes the word 'cigar' just means
Top of Page
There is a common phenomenon in broadcast and print news
when a journalist or anchorman will introduce an 'expert,' a person
who has an opinion to give about a piece of news but was not actually
involved in making the news. This person may be a former government
official, a think tank spokesman or an academic. Regardless of their
prior credentials, they are usually simply referred to as 'expert' or
'analyst' or 'political scientist' or any number of titles which give
the appearance that they have no financial or political stakes in the
issue on which they are commenting. However, a former Democrat party
member is likely to give his "expert opinion" with a favorable
bias towards his old party. Alternately, someone may be introduced as
an authority on a subject, such as the economy, when in fact they may
know less than for which they are given credit. Many 'experts' have
built careers on being introduced as knowledgeable sources. Like any
'in vogue' fashion, a commentator who is used on Nightline and CNN will
be asked to speak on many other shows.
It is important to be wary of these 'experts' who are
called in to give opinions. The tendency to assume that these guys are
fair and impartial simply because they are called experts is fallacious
and dangerous. There is usually a good reason why a journalist has decided
to source any particular 'expert.' For more information on what might
go into such a decision, go to Sources.