I stand firm on my assessment of News bias
In his commentary on Jan. 4, Mr. Hinkley states; “First, let’s dispense quickly with the idea that the AP’s coverage is biased.” Well, if the AP is the pillar of journalistic excellence, then explain why they buckled under widespread condemnation for their story title, “An Iranian general dies in U.S. attack, and innocents suffer.”
What about the Nick Sandmann (MAGA hat) story? CNN recently settled a defamation suit and the AP is one of several other media outlets being targeted for like action.
Bringing it home, The Alpena News, which sources the AP, ran 132 stories which were negative on President Donald Trump, balanced by only 19 that were fair, neutral, or positive of Trump. These ran during the period of Sept. 23, 2019 to Nov. 14, 2019. This is 87.4% negative Trump. Only slightly better than the documented 90% negative Trump in the mainstream media.
As a writer from Rogers City recently noted, “Bias not only what’s written, but what is not.” Case in point; The Alpena News carried the story of Gordon Sondland changing a previous testimony and now alleging quid-pro-quo (Nov. 6: “Impeachment reversal: Diplomat now acknowledges quid-pro-quo”). Yet that same day, a more credible witness, Kirk Volker, gave testimony that pushed back on the quid-pro-quo claim. The Alpena News did not carry this story.
Hinkley: “I think the reader misinterpreted a number of the opinion pieces,” referring to my analysis of the ratio or anti-Trump to pro-Trump columns run during the Sept. 23 to Nov. 14 period. Pro-Trump columns: 13; anti-Trump: 39. After reexamination, I found I had mistakenly failed to credit one pro-Trump column. However, the results remain heavily biased against Trump; approximately 3:1.
I could document further examples of bias at The Alpena News. However, space constraints do not allow. These are the facts and I will readily defend them.