Interpreting Bias

John Chelton over at CNN clearly supports Clinton over Obama. Presumably, that means he supports Clinton over McCain, and Democrats over Third Parties, Politicians over Anarchists, but perhaps I'm coloring him unfairly. His motivations could actually be very different on those last 3 statements, but the first one is a definite. You can read his bias in nearly every paragraph. It's interesting. Here's an example:

Barack Obama's loss in another big state and the margins by which he lost among blue-collar and rural voters on Tuesday, on the other hand, may raise questions about his electability.

This is what wikipedia and Teddy Roosevelt call weasel-words. He's trying to distance himself from his words, to "disembody" his speach, so that the words seem to be common wisdom, not merely his opinion. It's easy to do honestly and innocently by writing the way you talk, but it's also a clever way to manipulate when done on purpose. In the case above, Chelton is the one raising the question, but he wants us to think he's just reporting that someone else might raise it.

Look for Clinton to head into upcoming contests with the message that Obama can't win in the big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio that Democrats will need to regain the White House.

"With the message" isn't exactly the same as saying "she may argue." Instead it conveys a hidden bias that the conclusion is inevitable, despite it being but an opinion. Again, he wants us to feel he's identifying what he thinks Clinton will do, but in reality he's doing it for her.

There's a couple other little bits that betray this bias further. He discusses Clinton's leads as "comfortable" but uses the words "need" and "prove" when talking about Obama's leads. He suggests the best tactics and goals for Clinton, but doesn't speculate on tactics (merely lists goals) for Obama. He talks about the "pressure" exerted on superdelegates by the popular vote, but extols that they should consider momentum over the wishes of the people. Paragraph after paragraph seems bent pro-Clinton, except this one:

Clinton told supporters in her victory speech that "the tide has turned." It's more like she's slowed the wave of momentum that appeared ready to carry Obama to the party's nomination.

That one sentence was almost enough to stop me from publishing this post. It's a puzzling one, an about face from the rest of the article. But then I noticed this little grey line at the bottom of the page:

CNN Political Editor Mark Preston contributed to this report.

I wonder which sentence he contributed.

I think it's important to turn a skeptical eye at things, to try to get inside the heads of the speaker and figure out what motivates them. Too often we (the people, the country, etc, not the folks at this blog in specific or particular) just accept words for what they mean, not thinking why they are being said. That's how conmen, tabloids, and politicians take your money and leave you with nothing but an amusing anecdote about that time you got suckered.

In the interests of disclosure, I'd prefer Obama to Clinton. My bias above is very obvious and intentional. However, I'd prefer Clinton to McCain, yet he's the one most likely to win if the Democrats don't stop fighting with eachother at least a month ago. I must say, I'd prefer Nader, Ventura, Roth, Moore, Lessig, Kucinich or Richardson to any of the 3 most likely to win. McCain just gets slimier every time he speaks. Clinton and Obama both have so much to prove they may over-commit and make machismo-based errors on the job. A few months back I figured "anyone but Bush" would be an improvement. Now I worry.