☆ Merc covers RM4 story about biased ballot language with—get this—biased language of its own
The irony was delicious: BAHFA last week was compelled to admit it had been peddling prejudicial and inaccurate information in its RM4 ballot language. So the Merc played defense for BAHFA by employing—you guessed it—a bushel of bias of its own in its coverage of the walkback. An Opp Now exclusive media analysis by FOON (Friend of Opp Now) Susie Murillo.
I couldn't help but laugh out loud—prompting funny stares from my fellow customers at Chromatic Coffee on Lincoln—upon reading a Merc “journalist's” grudging acknowledgement of BAHFA's whopping blunder regarding how really expensive RM4 will be for taxpayers. I noticed at least four big journalistic boo-boo's in the Merc's “news” story about the RM4 blunder. Taken together, it's hard not to call into question whether the Merc is intellectually or temperamentally equipped to write a non-partisan story about this issue.
Check out the journalistic blunders:
They bury the lede.
That's a journalistic expression for delaying, or obscuring, the main part of the story. The big news of the RM4 fiasco was that BAHFA admitted, under legal pressure, that their ballot language hugely mischaracterized (on the down side) the cost to taxpayers. But it takes the Merc eight paragraphs to get to the specifics of the BAHFA stand down, and BAHFA's quote. The start of the story spends its time smirking through thinly veiled sarcasm and misdirecting the reader to the less important parts of the legal case against BAHFA.They use linguistic tricks to slant the story.
Check out how the Merc, in their subhead, refers to the opponents of RM4 as (note their use of air quotes) “concerned citizens.” Those “scare” quotes are loaded, and carry a judgment that the citizens may, in fact, not be 'concerned.' Nor 'citizens.' Nor both together. This is wild editorializing—just as I did by way of example in the my lead-in to this story, when I referred to the “journalist” who wrote the “news” story. Needless to say, when referring to BAHFA, they don't scare-quote the “authority” that brought RM4 to ballot, nor its claims to build “affordable” housing.They take dubious statements at face value. When confronted by the ballot blunder at last week's BAHFA executive meeting, BAHFA spokespeople claimed the mistake was "a mathematical error." To the Merc, they said it was a "clerical" error. To an alert “journalist,” the difference would've been a red flag. Especially as a "clerical" error suggests outrageously that the BAHFA team knew the data presented was inaccurate, but hey, they just didn't get around to reading their own ballot to discover it. But the Merc lets it slide and repeats the claim without comment.
They try to smear BAHFA opponents with dog whistles and coded language. The “story” tries to undermine opponents' legitimacy by painting them as fringe political players. Here's how: The story says nothing about the political orientations of BAHFA supporters (fairly, I might add as that's irrelevant to the news), but takes pains to point out that—in the words of the Merc—RM4 opponents have worked with "libertarian" and "conservative” organizations like the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute. Libertarians, I would venture, take umbrage at being called "conservatives," as they differ with traditional right-leaning, conservative policy quite often. But notably, the Merc doesn't care to call out that many RM4 supporters (on both BAHFA and the San Jose City Council) are supported by far-left groups like the Democratic Socialists of America. I guess that little bit of information doesn't fit the “narrative.”
You can read the whole Merc “story” here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.