Liberal Bias in CBS News Poll Story?
A CBS poll finds that 60% of Americans say it's likely "that the United States will ultimately find success in Iraq," and more than 50% say "Iraq will eventually become a stable democracy.""In some sense this all doesn't matter--after all, these are just opinions, mostly held by people who have no more than a passing knowledge of Iraq," writes Taranto. "But CBS insists on emphasizing those results that make it appear as if Americans agree with the 'liberal,' anti-Iraq point of view."So is the headline, "Majority of Americans Foresee Success in Iraq"? Nope, it's "Poll: Zarqawi Death Has Little Impact."
Adds the conservative Media Research Center, in noting Taranto's point: "Monday's CBS Evening News reported only one finding from the poll: How the killing of Zarqawi didn't give an approval bounce to President Bush."
What to stress in a poll is, at heart, a news judgment issue. To Taranto, the fact that majorities of Americans see positive outcomes in Iraq was the big news out of the poll. To CBS News, the notable result was the fact that news of Zarqawi's death hadn't improved Bush's approval ratings or Americans' perception of the situation in Iraq. As Taranto notes, CBS also "chose to play up" the following:
Half think the level of violence in Iraq will be unchanged by Zarqawi's death, while 30 percent say it will actually lead to more attacks against U.S. forces. Just 16 percent think the number of attacks will decrease as a result of his death.Further down in its story, CBS noted that "the poll did find some signs that Americans are becoming more optimistic about Iraq — at least when looking at the long term." But the bad news came first, and it was stressed in the headline. The headline has actually been changed since the story went online, but I doubt Taranto would be happier with it. It now reads, "Poll: Bush's Ratings Remain Low." The subhead is "Despite Zarqawi Death, Most Americans Say War's Going Badly."Sixty-one percent also say Zarqawi's death won't have any impact on the terrorist threat against the United States, while 22 percent it will increase that threat. Thirteen percent predict a decreased risk of terrorism.
Let's now look at how the Wall Street Journal, Taranto's paper, covered the WSJ/NBC News poll today. (Taranto, I should note, is affiliated with the Journal editorial page, not the news pages.) In the online "What's News" box, the Journal teased the story with this:
AMERICANS APPEAR closer to Bush's view on immigration, but that hasn't alleviated the squeeze on Republicans in fall elections, a new WSJ/NBC News poll found. Optimism about Iraq edged up after Zarqawi's death.The headline on the story was "Public Warms to Bush Immigration Stance"; the subhead, "Republicans Are Unlikely to Benefit in November Amid Weak Poll Results for Congress, President." Here's the relevant section:
Optimism about the war edged up slightly, with 53% of Americans saying that Mr. Zarqawi's death would improve the situation in Iraq at least a little. But Americans no longer share the president's assertion that "I made the right decision" to go to war in the first place. A 53% majority calls attacking Iraq "the wrong decision," while 41% side with Mr. Bush.How does one differentiate between bias and news judgment? It isn't easy. The Journal played up the immigration issue, and led with this line: "Add this to the list of things that have gone right lately for President Bush: Americans appear to be drawing closer to his view on the immigration debate." It didn't get to the mostly bad news on the war until further down in the story. Does that mean the Journal is biased in favor of the president? Or just that editors felt that the immigration news was more significant?A 61% majority called things in America "off on the wrong track," more than twice the 27% who said things are headed in the right direction." Approval of Congress remained at an abysmal level -- 23% -- while Americans sided with Democrats on most opinion measures. By 49%-38%, respondents said they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress after November's elections.
There's no obvious answer. It does seem to me that if you see the CBS News story as evidence of "liberal bias," than you'd have to look at the Journal story as evidence of "conservative bias." The problem with looking at everything through the bias prism is that it leaves no room for news judgment, which most journalists would say is the paramount consideration when considering how to play a story. That doesn't mean that there isn't bias out there. But I don't think you could plausibly argue that bias alone dictated the play the different results in each poll story received.