Normally, editorials are on the Opinion page of the Journal Star, usually page A4. But they must have made an exception this morning because they put their Kellar Branch editorial on the front page. The article is framed from the perspective of a trail advocate, which is the editorial position of the newspaper.
The headline says, “Ruling hurts plans for trail.” Not “STB rules on Kellar Branch,” or something evenhanded like that. The first sentence sets the tone for the article: “Advocates for converting the Kellar Branch rail line into a hiking and biking trail were dealt a serious blow by a federal government ruling Monday.” After summarizing the ruling, it says again that it’s “a step backward for trail proponents.”
Most of the article was devoted to the thoughts and plans of trail proponents and an analysis of the dissenting opinion of the STB ruling, including a lengthy quote from the lone dissenter. And in the printed version of the Journal Star, there’s a map accompanying the article that shows the “location of proposed trail extension.”
Where is the analysis of the majority opinion of the STB — you know, the effective part of the ruling? The biggest evidence of bias is the complete omission of any reporting on the reasons the STB made its decision. The public has a right to know why the STB ruled against the city.
In case you’re wondering, the reasons are (a) the city failed to prove that alternative service to Carver Lumber from the west was an adequate replacement for service over the Kellar Branch, (b) Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY) withdrew their petition to discontinue service along that portion of the Kellar Branch that trail proponents want to convert to a trail, and (c) Pioneer is “willing to provide the rail service on the Kellar Branch that Carver Lumber wants and that CIRY does not necessarily regard as economically justified.”
But you won’t read that in the Journal Star. They don’t provide balanced coverage of this issue. That’s fine for the editorial page, but it’s a shame they’re passing it off as “news.”
C. J., I think you have another reason to dump your subscription 🙂
Nobody should be surprised, its been their M.O. for years, and not just on this issue, although this is one of the more egregious examples. Maybe the PJS editors interned at Pravda in their younger days? Bad habits can be hard to break.
CJ,
Where one sees a bias, another might see something else.
First, I have to admit, I have not been following this story as close as I should be, nor all of the little inner working pieces.
But your automatic claim of bias in a headline because the Journal Star supports this trail might lean more to a bias of selling more papers than that of getting the trail.
And on the flip side, your alternative headline could even be interpreted as bias toward STB and the businesses wanting to keep the trail available for commerce.
Lastly, rather than simple bias, maybe the reporter and editor and over all PJS should be knocked for shoddy reporting instead of bias. Sadly, in the newsprint over the past decade, depth and good reporting is going the way of nugget style print reporting and lately I’ve seen even more of it the PJS than ever before.
My point is, in my opinion, the concept of conspiratory bias is thrown around all over and often times too quickly, especially when other factors could be involved.
Sctobrien — Point taken. Although I don’t see how a headline that simply states that the STB made a ruling could be considered either pro-trail or pro-rail, I do see how the headline they used could be helpful for marketing purposes.
As for whether the article itself was bias or shoddy reporting, I’ll concede that some of it could be the latter, not that that’s any great commendation toward the paper either.
That said, I can’t get over the fact that the report didn’t cover the reasons the STB made the decision it did (the majority opinion), but dwelt on the dissenting opinion. To me, that doesn’t indicate shoddy reporting, but deliberately one-sided reporting. What, he just accidentally skipped over the majority opinion?
You make well-reasoned points, and I can buy them about 85%. 🙂
Oh baloney. It’s blatant bias, plain and simple, and everybody who regularly reads the Chronicle knows it. The PJS people may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer, but they know what they’re doing. Just making it the headline was bias. Their stupid trail isn’t that newsworthy, to begin with – there were plenty of more important stories (how many TV stations even bothered to cover it on their 10:00 news last night??) stories.
Mouse and CJ,
I love newspapers and the media. The comment just made today or so by Brokaw about how he thinks in ten years newspapers as we know them will be gone is something I hate to see happen. There is something about holding that paper in your hand after getting it off the front stoop.
But with this, over the recent past, I have actually been able to tell a difference in the PJS – the stories are getting shorter and lacking more and more depth. And many stories that should be in the paper are not there. Sadly, the older I get, the more I also realize that over all quality in everything is greatly exaggerated. But I also realize that a daily paper also reflects the community it serves.
And from the topic at hand, I think you are right about questioning why the reasons the STB made the decision it did were not in the article. The reasons were news and valid. I just don’t think they were excluded out of bias, but instead out of other more benign reasons – laziness, space, complexity, inadequate reporting, public interest, reporter’s interest or something else not specified).
And you are right, shoddy reporting should not be something to be proud of, nor excused.
But I also think the headline was written the way it was out of pure commerce – that it would sell more papers than the one you suggested.