As it happens, my Arts Editor alerted me to a flagrant case of fragmentary information by the local Fox affiliate, Fox 9. CityPages’ Mike Mullen has the low-down on this low behavior:
To clarify: One set of folks holding signs and chanting was protesting against Planned Parenthood, saying the vilified chain of clinics should no longer receive any federal funding. These people numbered “a couple of hundred,” according to the Associated Press, and as many as 400, the Star Tribune reports. That small crowd says Congress should block Medicaid and any federal grants to Planned Parenthood because providing abortions accounts for some 3 percent of its work.
They were utterly outnumbered by a counter-protest in favor of Planned Parenthood, a neatly aligned demonstration that drew from the massive Women’s March in St. Paul a few weekends ago. On Saturday, that side numbered well into four-digit figures, as high as 6,000, according to a St. Paul Police Department estimate.
It’s in these types of situations that TV stations love to rush to the helo-pad and get the chopper up and buzzing above the crowd — or crowds, in this case. From that vantage point, they’re really the only ones who can take it all in.
You’d think.
Most of the images Fox 9 used to cover Saturday’s rallies showed close-ups of believers on other side, often contrasted with their opposite numbers in the same frame. Then one image depicts an overhead view of both sets of protesters.
And… whoa! From this angle, it looks like the two sides are even!
If you want to see his picture, follow the link. Intriguingly enough, Mike also notes that the local ABC affiliate, KSTP, did not mention the vast disparity in the size of the crowds – and takes them to task. (My favorite channel for news, WCCO, gets kudos on the other hand.) It appears more than one journalist – or editor – needs a refresher course in basic honest journalism.
Now, I could natter on about the basic dishonesty in not providing the complete picture, and how this shapes attitudes which might be significantly different if the full picture was provided.
But Mike does it so much better.
Mathematical accuracy matters in this fact-challenged era, as does pictorial honesty. Give the real numbers and an unvarnished view of the scene.
Let your reader or viewer deny what they’re seeing, turn up their collar to hide from the truth’s chill wind. Some still will. But you owe them a chance to know what’s right.
Go, Mike!
