Box Turtle Bulletin

How to recognize bias in a news story

One of the advantages of blogging is that you get to present your own opinion. I need not pretend that I am disinterested in the outcome of the Perry case or that I see “both sides” to anti-gay legislation. Yes, we try hard here at BTB to avoid spin, bogus arguments, and talking points, but we do come from a perspective that we neither hide nor find in need of apology.

But news writers don’t have it so easy. They are called on to present facts dispassionately and in a manner that allows the reader to draw his own conclusions. This doesn’t mean that they should let ridiculousness go unchallenged or present bizarre statements as though they are credible, but they should not omit relevant facts or let their coverage serve as advocacy.

But sometimes they just can’t help themselves.

Now, I don’t know for certain that Elizabeth Varin, writing for the Imperial Valley Press, actually has a bias in favor of Proposition 8 and its defense. Perhaps it’s coincidental that her ongoing coverage of this subject tends to quote extensively from anti-gay sources. And perhaps in this instance she was simply careless or omitted what she considered to be an irrelevant detail.

But here is how she concluded her article on the Imperial County Clerk’s efforts to be added as a defendant to the case after the fact:

“This case is not only important for influencing nationwide law regarding marriage, but it is also important for the people of California to have their vote respected,” said Jennifer Monk, associate general counsel for the law firm.

Ah, yes, “the law firm.” That would be, we assume, the law firm representing Storey. The nameless law firm representing Storey.

Contrast that with a paragraph that includes the information that Varin decided to omit.

“This case is not only important for influencing nationwide law regarding marriage, but it is also important for the people of California to have their vote respected,” said Jennifer Monk, associate general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, the law firm representing Storey.

Now that reads a bit differently, doesn’t it? Including the identity of Storey’s lawyers reveals a whole motivation that otherwise was undisclosed in Varin’s article. Suddenly the purpose of the lawsuit seems less about Storey’s duties and more about religious advocacy.

It does make one wonder why this detail didn’t make it into Varin’s coverage.

Imperial County tries again to be party to Perry

On January 4, 2011, the panel of Ninth Circuit judges hearing Perry v. Schwarzenegger determined that the County of Imperial, Board of Supervisors and Deputy Clerk Vargas do not have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. This was unsurprising as the judges were almost mocking of Vargas and her insignificance in the case, asking “Where is Dolores Provencio?”

Provencio, the Imperial County Clerk had declined to join the case. Vargas, an administrative clerk, had no authority to act in any manner on the administration of same-sex marriage licenses other than as directed by Provencio and/or the State Recorder.

In November 2010, Provencio did not run for reelection, and a new County Clerk was elected. Chuck Storey was sworn into office on January 3 of this year, the day before the court denied standing, and Storey now seeks to interject himself into the case as an appellant.

This appears, to me, to be nothing other than a publicity ploy.

Storey, the individual, would have no standing. He made no attempt to be party to the case during trial and has no particularized interests in the outcome.

Storey, the County Clerk, is bound by the limitations of the actions of the office of the Clerk. He cannot, at this time, retroactively reverse Provencio’s decision not to be a party to the case.

Storey’s motion to intervene has no greater relevance than had the County Clerk of Lassen County suddenly decided to jump on board. Although Storey’s motion claims that he “has a protectable interest and has timely sought to intervene in this matter,” few would consider his interjection at this point in the case to be timely.

New parties cannot be introduced willy-nilly. After the issue of standing has been argued before the panel and the court has made its decision, it cannot be expected to forever reopen the matter based on any future parties that may some day wish to be involved. I expect the court to laugh Mr. Storey right back to his clerk’s office.

But, no doubt, it does make good political theater for a two-bit local politician.