May 14, 2004, 02:08 AM
Chronic Pro-Metrorail Bias: the empirical evidence
It's been a year and a half since the Houston Chronicle accidentally posted the now infamous secret memo about their plan to bias news and editorial coverage in favor of Metrorail. As detailed in that document, the Chronicle's Metrorail promotion plan contains two complimentary components: a slanted editorial page that promotes transit backed by “a news-feature package with an equally specific focus,” or in other words biased news coverage. Anecdotal instances of both abound and are assuredly familiar to the watchful reader. To validate this bias with empirical evidence I recently conducted a media content study of the Chronicle's Metrorail coverage over a period between November 19, 2003 (the date of the first Metrorail accident) and mid-March 2004. The results should present little surprise to anyone, suggesting a clear and conscious bias exists in the paper's coverage of its beloved light rail system. The results are as follows:
Part I - Metrorail accident coverage
METHODOLOGY: For the first test I compared the depth of Houston Chronicle coverage on the first 24 Metrorail accidents to similar coverage by the local television news affiliates. This included looking at article length (Was it a full length article or simply a “news brief”?) and article depth (Did the Chronicle leave out any important information that was covered elsewhere?).
FINDINGS:
- Lack of depth - The Houston Chronicle tends to report Metrorail accidents in “news briefs” containing few details and often appearing deep within the back sections of the paper. 53% of the Chronicle's articles on Metrorail accidents were of this format while 47% reported in depth. These figures place the Chronicle in last place when compared to the TV station news websites. Only 15% of NBC 2's accident articles were “news briefs.” CBS 11 used news briefs in only 30% of their articles. ABC 13 used news briefs for 44% of their articles on Metrorail collisions.
- Omission of key accident details - For 14 out of the first 24 accidents the Chronicle ommitted details that were reported by one or more of the TV stations. 6 of the paper's ommissions pertained to the role that Metrorail design (or lack thereof) played in the accident, including but not limited to reports of confusing or conflicting signal signs and complaints about the lack of proper warning systems for a train's approach - all substantial and relevent public policy issues that transit designers are now having to address.
- Disproportionate citation of Metro-friendly sources - Out of the 30 article sample Metro sources outnumbered all other sources named in the articles by 70 to 57. The most frequently cited sources included Metro CEO Shirley DiLibero and Metro Spokesman Ken Connaughton, who was given one or more references in almost half of the articles. Almost half of the 57 non-Metro sources were people interviewed off the street. The disparity was even stronger in articles by the paper's transportation “beat” reporter Lucas Wall, also of Iraqi war coverage infamy. Wall sourced Metro-friendly references over all others by a ratio of 2 to 1.
- Metrorail critics are neglected and ignored - Out of this same 30 article sample only 7 light rail opponents were referenced by name. 4 of those 7 were elected leaders and only 3 were actual critics. In addition, two articles contained anonymous references identified only as “rail opponents.” Further, only a single article out of the sample of 30 provided any in depth or detailed references to the positions of rail critics.
- Slothful fact gathering - This tendency was most notable in the Chronicle's coverage of a study by Texas A&M's Transportation Institute that recommended safety modifications to the Main Street light rail line. The Chronicle's primary article (“Report: Light Rail not at fault in car-train crashes” on March 9th) about this study contained not one single reference to a non-Metro source and did not quote a single word from the A&M study (note: to the best of my knowledge the Chronicle article also made it the only local media outlet that did not quote from the A&M study directly). The article contained not a single reaction from any rail critic. Metro CEO Shirley DiLibero, by contrast, was quoted four separate times in this same article, almost all of which were self-congratulatory statements that downplayed the study's recommendations for safety improvements. And who was the culprit reporter for this travesty of a news article? Our old friend Lucas Wall.
- Biased Language - The Chronicle repeatedly employed pejorative and tonally biased language describe the activities of Metrorail opponents and critics. Texans for True Mobility, the group that led the opposition to Metrorail in last November's bond referendum, continued to recieve the brunt of the Chronicle's biased reporting well into January. “News” articles employed loaded terminology accusing the group of “secrecy” as if to suggest devious intent. Some articles stated that TTM “concealed” its finances and used “masked funding” - loaded terms that assign ulterior motives to the group without substantiating those motives. While the political messages of rail proponents were described as using simple advocacy, critics were described as “bashing” Metrorail
If you have perceived bias towards Metrorail while reading the Chronicle in the past you may have suspected one or more of these observations. Now you have statistical proof. Stay tuned for installment 2 - a look at the Chronicle's editorial page slant.
Permalink | Chron Bias | Previous Entry | Next Entry