It’s a basic tenet of journalism to present all sides in any argument as fairly and objectively as possible. It’s an imperative pursuit, but it has obvious practical limitations. Writing a news story is vastly different from listing bullet points in chart form.The overwhelming consensus I heard about The Kansas City Star’s news coverage of the killing of late-term abortion provider George Tiller was that readers found the news stories even-handed and equitable. I find it especially notable that the compliments came most often from abortion opponents, who have been generally critical of how The Star has covered Tiller over the years. On the other hand, those same readers often felt the preponderance of commentary after the shooting leaned far too heavily to the left. Some praised Mary Sanchez’ June 9 column, which gave voice to criticisms of Tiller’s demeanor and motivation. But many objected strenuously to two columns by Mike Hendricks, who identified “groups that fomented hate toward a man who, rightly or wrongly, believed he was serving a noble purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions” as “accomplices” to the killing.I heard some complaints about the balance of the Letters page as well, again mostly from abortion opponents. However, that column did run several strong objections to Hendricks’ commentary, along with many condemnations of the slaying from all sides.“It puts us on the pro-life side in a terrible place,” said one caller. “Nobody sane would ever want someone to commit a crime, especially not to end a life. I just don’t know how we defend ourselves here without looking like we’re supporting (suspect Scott) Roeder. I don’t know how we get a fair shake, how we make our side heard without it seeming wrong.”One reader thought the Letters page sometimes betrays favoritism by arrangement. “I have noticed that when there are a group of letters on one topic, the editor seems to always place the letter with whose opinion she agrees last in the group so it has ‘the last word,’&ensp;” she e-mailed. I’m not sure I detect that myself as a pattern, but I do agree that it’s easy and natural for people to perceive intention in the order. Reader Andrew Sweeney perceived a similar motive in what he termed “a decently fair representation of what has happened and of the current abortion situation” in a June 10 wire story about Tiller’s clinic closing permanently. The final quote is from an abortion-rights supporter bemoaning the “significant barrier for women throughout the state that have that need.” He wrote:“I fully understand that this is a quote from someone unaffiliated with The Star. But ending an article with this type of statement … taints the entire article with a sense of bias.”Writers often employ those “kicker” quotes to make stories narratively interesting, but I get Mr. Sweeney’s point. Engaging writing techniques can sometimes get in the way of neutrality, intentionally or not.

KansasCity.com

43°F

63°/42°

Weather Alert

KC Star: Subscribe | Manage Account | Digital E-Star | Star Advantage | Star in Education

Posted on Sat, Jun. 13, 2009 10:15 PM

Buzz Up

Comment (0)

tool goes here

READERS' REPRESENTATIVE

When journalists sum up opposing viewpoints, placement can look like bias

By DEREK DONOVAN

The Kansas City Star

More News

The overwhelming consensus I heard about The Kansas City Star’s news coverage of the killing of late-term abortion provider George Tiller was that readers found the news stories even-handed and equitable. I find it especially notable that the compliments came most often from abortion opponents, who have been generally critical of how The Star has covered Tiller over the years.

On the other hand, those same readers often felt the preponderance of commentary after the shooting leaned far too heavily to the left. Some praised Mary Sanchez’ June 9 column, which gave voice to criticisms of Tiller’s demeanor and motivation.

But many objected strenuously to two columns by Mike Hendricks, who identified “groups that fomented hate toward a man who, rightly or wrongly, believed he was serving a noble purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions” as “accomplices” to the killing.

I heard some complaints about the balance of the Letters page as well, again mostly from abortion opponents. However, that column did run several strong objections to Hendricks’ commentary, along with many condemnations of the slaying from all sides.

“It puts us on the pro-life side in a terrible place,” said one caller. “Nobody sane would ever want someone to commit a crime, especially not to end a life. I just don’t know how we defend ourselves here without looking like we’re supporting (suspect Scott) Roeder. I don’t know how we get a fair shake, how we make our side heard without it seeming wrong.”

One reader thought the Letters page sometimes betrays favoritism by arrangement. “I have noticed that when there are a group of letters on one topic, the editor seems to always place the letter with whose opinion she agrees last in the group so it has ‘the last word,’ ” she e-mailed. I’m not sure I detect that myself as a pattern, but I do agree that it’s easy and natural for people to perceive intention in the order.

Reader Andrew Sweeney perceived a similar motive in what he termed “a decently fair representation of what has happened and of the current abortion situation” in a June 10 wire story about Tiller’s clinic closing permanently. The final quote is from an abortion-rights supporter bemoaning the “significant barrier for women throughout the state that have that need.” He wrote:

“I fully understand that this is a quote from someone unaffiliated with The Star. But ending an article with this type of statement … taints the entire article with a sense of bias.”

Writers often employ those “kicker” quotes to make stories narratively interesting, but I get Mr. Sweeney’s point. Engaging writing techniques can sometimes get in the way of neutrality, intentionally or not.

To reach Derek Donovan, send e-mail to readerrep@kcstar.com or call 816-234-4487 weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and noon. Visit Ad Astrum, the readers’ representative blog, at adastrum.kansascity.com.

Posted on Sat, Jun. 13, 2009 10:15 PM

Buzz Up

Comment (0)

Join the discussion

Share your observations and experiences about news. Lively, open, civil debate is the goal. Please refrain from personal attacks or comments that are racist, vulgar or otherwise inappropriate. If you see an inappropriate comment, please click the "Report as abuse" link.