- 2 weeks ago
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00There are some basic rules of Journalism 101, and I've found some of the biggest news organizations aren't following these
00:07when it comes to the major story about the U.S. military striking boats off the coast of Venezuela.
00:14A journalist is supposed to balance a story by including multiple perspectives
00:19and giving each relevant viewpoint a fair opportunity to be heard.
00:24But when it comes to whether the president has the authority to conduct these strikes or not,
00:30many news outlets are leaving out important context.
00:34That's a breach of ethics by most standards that reveals their bias.
00:39Here's what you really need to know about a U.S. president's authority over the military and the war power's resolution.
00:46Welcome back to Bias Breakdown.
00:49Let's start with this.
00:50More than a handful of small boats off the coast of Venezuela have been struck by the U.S. military since September 2nd.
00:58President Trump says every targeted vessel was carrying drugs with suspected narco-terrorists on board.
01:05The strikes have left the boats obliterated and at least 27 people dead.
01:10This latest U.S. military action has sparked a major debate in the media
01:14over whether the president is acting within his legal authority to conduct such strikes.
01:21News outlets on the left interviewed guests who said the president's orders are illegal.
01:26Give me a sense of how you read this from a legal vantage point.
01:30The answer is actually quite simple.
01:32He has no domestic or international legal authority to conduct these strikes.
01:35This was murder on the high seas.
01:37The United States military carried out in a legal order.
01:40There's no legal basis for President Trump to be taking these actions.
01:45These are extrajudicial killings.
01:48But news outlets on the right interviewed guests who argued the exact opposite.
01:52Is the president on solid legal ground here?
01:57He does have a legal case and I think it can be made that he's acting effectively as a commander-in-chief
02:03against imminent danger.
02:05Under the president's broad authorities to, you know, combat imminent threats to the United States
02:09which include drugs that have poisoned hundreds of thousands of Americans to death, he will take you out.
02:16Does he need to seek congressional approval?
02:18I don't think he needs congressional approval.
02:19Now, is it just a coincidence that left-leaning outlets selected guests that spoke against the president
02:25and networks on the right selected guests that backed him?
02:29Probably not.
02:30So there you have the political narratives and noise over the issue and a form of media bias.
02:37These segments only offered one conclusion.
02:40Rather than including any opposing argument, beyond the show host asking lightly challenging questions
02:46in some situations when there's clearly two political perspectives to this one issue.
02:52That's bias by viewpoint omission.
02:56That's the overarching pattern of bias I found from news outlets covering this story,
03:00including this example from the Associated Press.
03:04The piece features many critical voices.
03:07A former ambassador under President Biden who says the strikes undermine intelligence gathering.
03:13Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, who argued Trump did not have proper authority.
03:19And a Venezuelan official who condemned U.S. actions.
03:23The article doesn't include a single voice or statement from a Republican who publicly defended the strikes.
03:31The AP emphasized Schiff's opposition in this bolded sub-headline that reads,
03:36Congressman says Trump's authority in this matter is limited.
03:40But there was no balancing sub-headline for a congressman who would say Trump's authority in this matter is justified.
03:48We saw the same form of viewpoint omission in NBC's nightly coverage.
03:53But there are mounting questions tonight about the legality of these operations.
03:57This doubt over the president's authority continued,
04:00with the reporter only emphasizing viewpoints that questioned the legality of the strikes.
04:06But there's growing controversy tonight over the legality of the U.S. strikes on those boats,
04:11with some members of Congress, including Republicans, demanding answers.
04:16The story included comments from the president,
04:18but never offered other voices who contend that the president is on solid legal ground.
04:24It also didn't explain the White House's legal justifications for the strikes.
04:29Only skepticism over the president's authority was amplified in this story.
04:34While this is in the realm of bias by viewpoint omission,
04:37there is another form of media bias in this story.
04:40One that after 40 plus episodes of bias breakdown, we haven't talked about here before.
04:46It's bias by source attribution omission.
04:50And it's a very important type of media bias to call out.
04:53Because as a journalist, I'm not supposed to tell you things and expect you to just take my word for it.
04:59As a journalist, I'm supposed to tell you the facts and cite where I'm getting that information from.
05:06Media watchdog group All Sides calls this out word for word in an example under their definition.
05:12They say reporters will write that immigration opponents say,
05:16critics say, or supporters of the bill noted,
05:20without identifying who these sources are.
05:23While critics say, or supporters say, can be an easy way to paraphrase,
05:29readers should note when journalists fail to back this up with specifics.
05:34In this case, NBC, on three different occasions inside this one report,
05:40say broadly, Republicans say this without ever identifying one single Republican.
05:47Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress
05:50are pushing for more answers about the president's plans.
05:53Some members of Congress, including Republicans, demanding answers.
05:57Republican lawmakers were upset.
05:58Briefers were unable to answer questions about the legal basis for the operations.
06:03But you take reports from CBS News and ABC News,
06:07and they responsibly name Republican Senator Rand Paul specifically,
06:11and show his opposition on the Senate floor.
06:14Notably, you've had Senator Rand Paul, a Republican,
06:17saying that he wants to force a vote with a bipartisan group of senators
06:21to block the president from any military action against Venezuela.
06:26So there's a one in four chance, statistically speaking,
06:30that one of these boats may not have had any drugs on it.
06:34We will never know because they were blown to smithereens.
06:38The large majority of Republicans are backing the president.
06:42This resolution would have forced the president to seek Congress's approval
06:46for any further military action against Venezuela, but it failed 48 to 51.
06:54Out of 53 Republican senators, only two of them,
06:58Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,
07:03who have a track record of breaking ranks with Republicans,
07:07were the only two GOP senators who sided with Democrats,
07:11voting Trump needed congressional approval.
07:14But for NBC to paraphrase the opposition by broadly saying
07:19even Republican lawmakers are demanding accountability,
07:23technically it's accurate because there is some Republican opposition,
07:28but it's misleading.
07:31The story paints the picture of the president's own party
07:35questioning his authority,
07:36when really it's two Republican senators
07:40who have track records of outspoken criticism
07:42of the current administration.
07:44But you wouldn't know it by NBC's report
07:47because they vaguely lump all Republicans in
07:50instead of identifying the sources of opposition,
07:54Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski.
07:56The New York Times also fell into the same sort of media bias
08:00in their write-up following the fifth Venezuela boat strike.
08:04The Times wrote,
08:05since Mr. Trump and his defense secretary,
08:08Pete Hegseth, started the operation last month,
08:12a broad range of legal specialists
08:14have called the premeditated
08:16and summary extrajudicial killings illegal.
08:19The Times then reported,
08:21they noted the military cannot lawfully target civilians,
08:25but the journalist never identifies who they are,
08:29only broadly calling them legal specialists,
08:32but there are no quotes
08:34from any specific legal specialist in the entire story.
08:38Another example of bias by source omission.
08:42We're about to get into some of the key facts of this story,
08:45but before I wrap up the media bias portion of this episode,
08:49I just want to reiterate something here.
08:51Anyone who works with me in this newsroom
08:53knows that I approach the use of the word expert
08:56with great caution.
08:58I feel like this term is thrown around so loosely
09:00in the industry and it gives people
09:02a false sense of authority.
09:04By calling someone an expert,
09:06it can feel like everything they say
09:08is automatically credible or factual.
09:12Now, don't get me wrong.
09:13I do have great respect for people
09:14who have a lot of knowledge and experience
09:16in whatever given field of study.
09:19There is a level of expertise that deserves recognition.
09:23But just as we've talked about how the media
09:26can push a conclusion based off of what legal analysts
09:29or legal experts have to say,
09:31it's important to remember experts have opinions too.
09:36And we saw this dynamic off the top of the show.
09:39For example, MSNBC interviewing a former army captain
09:43and Fox News interviewing a former U.S. Navy captain.
09:48They can both be seen as experts
09:50in their respective military careers,
09:53but each had opposing takeaways
09:55over the legality of the strikes.
09:58An example of how experts
10:00can have differing opinions and takeaways
10:02and how the partisan media
10:04can use experts to reinforce their political side.
10:09Okay, jumping off of my soapbox now,
10:11that's just something that I feel very passionately about
10:14that I just wanna bring some more awareness to.
10:16Stay with me, let's get to some of the quick facts
10:19of the story.
10:20We're going to back up prior to the series of boat strikes.
10:24The day of his inauguration,
10:25President Trump signed this executive order
10:28designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.
10:32Fast forward to September 2nd.
10:34The U.S. military says it conducted strikes
10:37against a drug-carrying boat in the Caribbean
10:40operated by narco-terrorists.
10:42Keep that language and date of September 2nd
10:46in mind.
10:47Strikes would continue.
10:49Then, during the first week of October,
10:51Congress was notified in a memo
10:53that the U.S. was engaged
10:55in a non-international armed conflict
10:57with narco-terrorists that were classified
11:00as unlawful combatants in the memo.
11:03This is language our war reporter,
11:06Ryan Robertson, says carries big legal
11:08and strategic implications.
11:11By calling them unlawful combatants,
11:14the White House is putting these suspected drug smugglers
11:16in the same class as al-Qaeda or ISIS terrorists.
11:20He's right.
11:21It's the same language George W. Bush used
11:24to describe al-Qaeda terrorists.
11:27The terminology and earlier designation
11:30of drug cartels as terrorist organizations
11:33unlocked the White House's justification
11:35for the president to invoke his authority
11:38granted under Article 2 of the Constitution.
11:41This is pursuant to his constitutional authority
11:45as commander-in-chief and the chief executive
11:47to conduct foreign relations.
11:49There is a sort of checks and balance to this power
11:52known as the War Powers Resolution.
11:55A president's ability to call military shots
11:58without congressional approval
11:59has long been debated and scrutinized
12:02under several administrations,
12:04something CNN pointed out in their coverage.
12:07The justification for treating them
12:10the way that the United States treated ISIS or al-Qaeda,
12:16obviously, we discussed a lot of issues like this
12:18during the Obama years
12:19when he increased the use of drones
12:22to strike individuals like Anwar al-Awlaki,
12:26the American-born, I believe he was al-Qaeda,
12:29the cleric.
12:31And that was just one example
12:32of previous controversy.
12:35This sort of checks and balance
12:36through the War Powers Resolution
12:38comes with an expiration clock
12:40from the time the president invokes Article 2,
12:44something pointed out by a CNN guest
12:46who was against the boat strikes.
12:48There is a War Powers Act
12:50which requires the termination
12:51of such military operations
12:53if the president hasn't received
12:54affirmative authority from Congress.
12:56That clock started on September 2nd
12:58with the first strike
12:59and so it should expire
13:00in the first week of November.
13:01So under the War Powers Law,
13:03the president needs congressional approval
13:0560 days after the first strike
13:08to continue military action in the Caribbean.
13:11While Congress could intervene now
13:13through resolutions,
13:14Republicans have so far voted
13:16to strike those down
13:17to allow the president
13:19to continue strikes
13:20under his Article 2 authority.
13:22But that doesn't mean
13:24the debate is over
13:25as lawmakers and some military
13:28and legal analysts
13:29continue to discuss
13:30how the president
13:31has used specific language
13:33and terror group labels
13:35to justify the strikes.
13:37As our Ryan Robertson
13:39again showed us in his story
13:41which offered both perspectives
13:43on the conflict.
13:44These are civilians
13:46and if there's one thing we learn
13:49and it's actually in the handbook,
13:51the commander's handbook
13:52for the law of naval operations
13:54is that we don't attack civilians.
13:58I thought when I read about this
14:00that this was wrong to do that.
14:03This administration has designated cartels
14:05as a foreign terrorist organization.
14:08That gives them lawful right
14:09to go after,
14:10at least lawful right
14:11from an American perspective,
14:12to go after these organizations
14:13who the administration has said
14:15is in armed conflict
14:17with the United States.
14:18I know personally I learned a lot
14:20while researching this story.
14:22I think it's a pretty complex issue
14:24but the facts are out there
14:26for us to learn this
14:27and comprehend it.
14:29Good journalism means
14:30informing the public
14:31about current events,
14:33offering multiple perspectives
14:35on hot button issues
14:36and providing sources and citations
14:39for everything we report
14:41to better equip you.
14:43Even in an age of widespread
14:45media bias and distrust,
14:47I still believe in the power
14:49of good journalism
14:50when taken back to the basics.
14:52You just have to sift through
14:54the media noise and narratives
14:55to find it.
14:57And that's your bias breakdown.
14:59I feel like I've talked a lot
15:01in this episode.
15:02I hope you're still here with me.
15:04If you're new here,
15:05then welcome to the crew.
15:06And if you're returning,
15:07then thank you so much
15:08for coming back.
15:09No matter where you're watching us,
15:11I'm glad you're here.
15:12If you'd like to be the first notified
15:14about new episodes dropping,
15:16it's easy to do.
15:17Just download the SAN mobile app
15:19and sign up for notifications
15:21for Bias Breakdown.
15:23And you can also sign up
15:24to get alerts for Ryan's podcast
15:26called Weapons and Warfare.
15:28As you just saw
15:29in these past few snippets,
15:31he does a great job
15:32breaking down big military stories.
15:35You can also find us
15:36across the podcast platform spectrum.
15:38We had a college professor
15:40comment recently on Spotify
15:42that they were showing
15:43our Bias Breakdown episodes
15:44to their students.
15:46And that was so awesome to hear.
15:48Join the conversation
15:49over on Spotify
15:50or find us on YouTube.
15:53Y'all are making this fun
15:54for me and the team
15:55to log into YouTube
15:56and see hundreds of you
15:58commenting your thoughts
15:59and your feedback
16:00on our past episodes.
16:02I love to see that sort of interaction
16:04and community building.
16:06So I hope that we can
16:07keep that going.
16:08Give us a like,
16:09a comment,
16:10or subscribe
16:11to keep us growing
16:12in the algorithms.
16:13Thank you so much
16:14to our video editor,
16:15Ian Kennedy
16:16and our graphics designer,
16:18Allie Caldwell.
16:19Thank you for watching
16:20and for sharing us
16:21with your family and friends.
16:23And I will see you next time.
Recommended
0:57
|
Up next
Be the first to comment