A Note to the Ombudsman

I've been home for only a week and I am already forced to complain to the editors of the local paper. The Kansas City Star is a Knight Ridder newspaper and is thus rife with NY Times, AP, and WaPo content. During the election season, they have a 1/3 page section called "On The Campaign Trail." It contains briefs about the local and national campaigns which is compiled from news service reports. It is usually headed off with a photo and about a three line caption. Which brings me to my complaint. When I was in J101, the first thing I was taught about captions was that they were supposed to be very brief factual descriptions of the contents of a photo. I guess I was absent the day they told us that captions should include editorial commentary. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a link (and I have scoured the net looking for them) to the pictures and captions which have raised my ire. Thus I will try to give you a description of the pictures.

The first day's picture is of two men wearing flag decorated shirts and waving Bush/Cheney '04 signs taken at a rally featuring VP Cheney. They are amidst a large number of people and the whole scene looks rather raucous. And if I were among "the elite," I would have to say that they look rather buffoonish.

The second day's picture is of Elizabeth Edwards bending down lovingly and smiling with a darling little blonde haired six year old girl. They appear to be quite happy and act as if they just shared a little joke.

To me, the contrast between the captions which accompanied these two pictures is a perfect example of the liberal bias which permeates much of the MSM. The following is the letter that I sent to the paper's reader's representative:

_________________________________________________________

Mr. Donovan,

In an effort towards full disclosure, I am a conservative KC Star subscriber. That being said, I would like to take a try at being a caption writer for the KC Star; one who happens to have a conservative perspective. I want you to see how unhappy I am with the bias I perceive on a daily basis in the paper. Here are just a couple of examples of the KC Star's supposedly unbiased work.

1) 10/25/04 - Page A2 - On The Campaign Trail

Star's caption for picture at a VP Cheney rally:

"Partisans: At a Friday rally for VP Dick Cheney at the Warren County Fairgrounds in Warrenton Mo., Max Aubuchon (left) and Kevin Sanderlin, both of Hermann, Mo., flaunted their political leanings.

My caption:

"Go Bush/Cheney! At a Friday rally for VP Dick Cheney at the Warren County Fairgrounds in Warrenton Mo., Max Aubuchon (left) and Kevin Sanderlin, showed their support for the Vice President.

Analysis: The words "partisans," "flaunted," and "political
leanings" evoke a negative reaction from the
reader. These are not neutral words. They have
a negative connotation in this context. They
also add editorial commentary to what is
supposed to be simply a description of a picture.



The words "go Bush/Cheney," "showed," and
"support" are more "just-the-facts" like. What
you have in the picture are people expressing
their approval of VP Cheney at a rally by said
VP. Facts.


2) 10/26/04 - Page A2 - On The Campaign Trail

Star's caption for picture of Elizabeth Edwards at a public appearance:

"The Youth Vote? After a healthcare forum Saturday in Burnham Brook, Mich., Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, greeted Deanna Alm, 6, of Portage, Mich.

My caption:

"Political Pandering? After a partisan public appearance Saturday in Burnham Brook, Mich., Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, aped for a photo-op with a brainwashed Deanna Alm, 6, of Portage, Mich.

Analysis: The words "the youth vote," "forum," and
"greeted Deanna Alm" when put together are
very warm and fuzzy. They are the exclamation
mark on a cute and "feel good" photograph.
Very positive. I will concede that this caption is
close to neutral and does not bother me. What
bothers me is when you contrast it to the first
caption. Why the double standard? Why the
loaded caption with the Republican picture and
the "cutesy" caption with the Democrat picture?

The words "political pandering," "partisan public
appearance," "aped for a photo-op," and
"brainwashed" reinforce what a conservative
sees in the cute picture. They neutralize the
age old political tactic of politicians being
pictured with babies and children. I know they
are a bit hyperbolic but I think you discern my
point.



Summary:

I am confident that as the Star's Readers' Representative, you have accumulated extensive education in writing and have undergone thorough training in journalism. That is why I am also confident in my assumption that you understand that words convey, on multiple levels, more than what is actually said on the page in black and white. I know these two examples are anecdotal, but they are indicative of a voluminous list I could compile if I were so inclined. That is why, I do not buy into the theory that over time, a balance will be reached. I grow weary of having my intelligence insulted on a daily basis by the Star in particular and the media in general. Contrary to what appears to be the media consensus, we are not a bunch of morons out here. The fact is, I could tolerate most of the media's tendentiousness if it didn't wrap itself up in the banner of objectivity. I think that with today's instant access to information and opinion, the goal of striving for objectivity may have become a quixotic endeavor.

Sincerely,
Lisa Trieste

_________________________________________________

I wonder if I will hear back from Mr. Donovan?