- 3 months 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.
00:33That'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. More than a handful of small boats off the coast of Venezuela
00:54have 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. He has no domestic or international legal authority to conduct these strikes.
01:35This was murder on the high seas. The United States military carried out in a legal order.
01:40There's no legal basis for President Trump to be taking these actions. These are extrajudicial killings.
01:47But news outlets on the right interviewed guests who argued the exact opposite.
01:52Is the president on solid legal ground here?
01:55He does have a legal case and I think it can be made that he's acting effectively as a commander in chief against imminent danger.
02:03Under the president's broad authorities to combat imminent threats to the United States,
02:10which include drugs that have poisoned hundreds of thousands of Americans to death, he will take you out.
02:15Does he need to seek congressional approval?
02:17I 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? Probably 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 rather than including any opposing argument
02:43beyond the show host asking lightly challenging questions in some situations
02:48when there's clearly two political perspectives to this one issue.
02:53That'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.
03:14Democratic Senator Adam Schiff who argued Trump did not have proper authority.
03:19And a Venezuelan official who condemned US actions.
03:23The article doesn't include a single voice or statement from a Republican who publicly defended the strikes.
03:30The 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.
03:47We 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, with the reporter only emphasizing viewpoints that question the legality of the strikes.
04:07But there's growing controversy tonight over the legality of the US strikes on those boats,
04:11with some members of Congress, including Republicans, demanding answers.
04:15The story included comments from the president, but never offered other voices who contend that the president is on solid legal ground.
04:23It 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, there 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, critics say, or supporters of the bill noted, without identifying who these sources are.
05:23While critics say or supporters say can be an easy way to paraphrase, readers should note when journalists fail to back this up with specifics.
05:34In this case, NBC, on three different occasions inside this one report, say broadly,
05:41Republicans say this without ever identifying one single Republican.
05:47Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress are pushing for more answers about the president's plans.
05:53Some members of Congress, including Republicans, demanding answers.
05:57Republican lawmakers were upset briefers were unable to answer questions about the legal basis for the operations.
06:03But you take reports from CBS News and ABC News, and they responsibly name Republican Senator Rand Paul
06:10specifically and show his opposition on the Senate floor.
06:14Notably, you've had Senator Rand Paul, a Republican, saying that he wants to force a vote with a bipartisan group of senators to block the president from any military action against Venezuela.
06:26So there's a one in four chance, statistically speaking, that 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 for any further military action against Venezuela.
06:50But it failed 48 to 51.
06:54Out of 53 Republican senators, only two of them, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,
07:03who have a track record of breaking ranks with Republicans, were 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 even Republican lawmakers are demanding accountability,
07:23technically it's accurate because there is some Republican opposition, but it's misleading.
07:31The story paints the picture of the president's own party questioning his authority,
07:37when really it's two Republican senators who have track records of outspoken criticism of the current administration.
07:45But you wouldn't know it by NBC's report because they vaguely lump all Republicans in,
07:50instead of identifying the sources of opposition, Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski.
07:57The New York Times also fell into the same sort of media bias in their write-up following the fifth Venezuela boat strike.
08:04The Times wrote,
08:05Since Mr. Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth started the operation last month,
08:11a broad range of legal specialists have called the premeditated and 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, only broadly calling them legal specialists,
08:33but there are no quotes from any specific legal specialists 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, I just want to reiterate something here.
08:51Anyone who works with me in this newsroom knows that I approach the use of the word expert with great caution.
08:58I feel like this term is thrown around so loosely in the industry and it gives people a false sense of authority.
09:04By calling someone an expert, it can feel like everything they say is automatically credible or factual.
09:11Now, don't get me wrong. I do have great respect for people who have a lot of knowledge and experience in 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 can push a conclusion based off of what legal analysts or 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 and Fox News interviewing a former US Navy captain.
09:48They can both be seen as experts in their respective military careers,
09:53but each had opposing takeaways over the legality of the strikes.
09:58An example of how experts can have differing opinions and takeaways,
10:02and how the partisan media can 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 that I just want to bring some more awareness to.
10:17Stay with me. Let's get to some of the quick facts of the story.
10:20We're going to back up prior to the series of boat strikes.
10:24The day of his inauguration, President Trump signed this executive order,
10:28designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.
10:32Fast forward to September 2nd.
10:34The US military says it conducted strikes against a drug carrying boat
10:39in the Caribbean operated by narco terrorists.
10:43Keep that language and date of September 2nd in mind.
10:47Strikes would continue.
10:49Then during the first week of October, Congress was notified in a memo
10:53that the US was engaged in a non-international armed conflict with narco terrorists that were classified
11:00as unlawful combatants in the memo.
11:03This is language our war reporter Ryan Robertson says carries big legal and strategic implications.
11:11By calling them unlawful combatants, the White House is putting these suspected drug smugglers
11:17in the same class as Al-Qaeda or ISIS terrorists.
11:20He's right. It's the same language George W. Bush used to describe Al-Qaeda terrorists.
11:27The terminology and earlier designation of drug cartels as terrorist organizations
11:33unlocked the White House's justification for the president to invoke his authority,
11:39granted under Article 2 of the Constitution.
11:42This is pursuant to his constitutional authority as commander in chief
11:46and the chief executive to conduct foreign relations.
11:49There is a sort of checks and balance to this power known as the War Powers Resolution.
11:55A president's ability to call military shots without congressional approval has long been debated
12:01and scrutinized under several administrations, something CNN pointed out in their coverage.
12:07The justification for treating them the way that the United States treated ISIS or Al-Qaeda.
12:16Obviously, we discussed a lot of issues like this during the Obama years,
12:20when he increased the use of drones to strike individuals like Anwar al-Awlaki,
12:25who the American born, I believe he was Al-Qaeda cleric.
12:30And that was just one example of previous controversy.
12:35This sort of checks and balance for the War Powers Resolution comes with an expiration clock
12:40from the time the president invokes Article 2,
12:44something pointed out by a CNN guest who was against the boat strikes.
12:48There is a War Powers Act which requires the termination of such military operations.
12:53If the president hasn't received affirmative authority from Congress,
12:56that clock started on September 2nd with the first strike,
12:59and so it should expire in the first week of November.
13:01So under the War Powers Law, the president needs congressional approval 60 days after the first
13:07strike to continue military action in the Caribbean. While Congress could intervene now
13:13through resolutions, Republicans have so far voted to strike those down to allow the president to
13:19continue strikes under his Article 2 authority. But that doesn't mean the debate is over,
13:25as lawmakers and some military and legal analysts continue to discuss how the president has used
13:32specific language and terror group labels to justify the strikes. As our Ryan Robertson again showed
13:40us in his story, which offered both perspectives on the conflict.
13:44These are civilians. And if there's one thing we learn, and it's actually in the handbook,
13:51the commander's handbook for the law of naval operations, is that we don't attack civilians.
13:58I thought when I read about this, that this was wrong to do that.
14:03This administration has designated cartels as a foreign terrorist organization. That gives them lawful
14:09right to go after, at least lawful right from an American perspective, to go after these organizations who
14:14the administration has said is in armed conflict with the United States.
14:18I know personally, I learned a lot while researching this story. I think it's a pretty complex issue.
14:24But the facts are out there for us to learn this and comprehend it. Good journalism means
14:30informing the public about current events, offering multiple perspectives on hot button issues,
14:36and providing sources and citations for everything we report to better equip you.
14:42Even in an age of widespread media bias and distrust, I still believe in the power of good journalism
14:50when taken back to the basics. You just have to sift through the media noise and narratives to find it.
14:57And that's your bias breakdown.
14:59I feel like I've talked a lot in this episode. I hope you're still here with me. If you're new here,
15:05then welcome to the crew. And if you're returning, then thank you so much for coming back.
15:10No matter where you're watching us, I'm glad you're here. If you'd like to be the first notified about
15:15new episodes dropping, it's easy to do. Just download the SAN mobile app and sign up for
15:20notifications for bias breakdown. And you can also sign up to get alerts for Ryan's podcast called
15:27Weapons and Warfare. As you just saw in these past few snippets, he does a great job breaking down
15:33big military stories. You can also find us across the podcast platform spectrum. We had a college
15:39professor comment recently on Spotify that they were showing our bias breakdown episodes to their
15:45students. And that was so awesome to hear. Join the conversation over on Spotify or find us on YouTube.
15:53Y'all are making this fun for me and the team to log into YouTube and see hundreds of you commenting
15:59your thoughts and your feedback on our past episodes. I love to see that sort of interaction
16:04and community building. So I hope that we can keep that going. Give us a like a comment or subscribe
16:11to keep us growing in the algorithms. Thank you so much to our video editor, Ian Kennedy,
16:16and our graphics designer, Ali Caldwell. Thank you for watching and for sharing us with
16:21your family and friends. And I will see you next time.
Be the first to comment