First published June 1, 1997
Recently, I read of a woman who awoke one morning to what
she called ``a glorious chorus of birds singing in unison outside my window.''
Not wanting to miss the moment and hoping to share it with
someone, she dragged her teen-age son from his bed into her room with the
exhortation, ``Listen. I don't want you to miss this.''
The boy listened. Then, in exasperation he fell across
her unmade bed, rubbed his eyes and exclaimed, ``I can't hear anything with
those dumb birds carrying on!''
Many years ago I watched an instructive film concerning
human perception: A crime was re-enacted, and six people who watched the
re-enactment were asked to describe the man who perpetrated the crime.
Amazingly, all six gave differing
descriptions of the man. Asked to describe the tie he was wearing, five
``eye witnesses'' described five different ties, and a sixth witness said
the man wasn't wearing a tie.
Then there is the age-old description of the difference
between an optimist and a pessimist: The optimist sees the donut while the
pessimist sees the hole.
There's an intriguing lesson of human psychology here.
The implications for criminal trials -- and for news reports -- are mind-boggling.
The nature of the world and its events are not such that
we all perceive exactly the same things when we observe those events.
The definition of ``young'' or ``youthful'' is much different
when expressed by a twenty-year-old than when expressed by a fifty-year-old.
In the world of physics and sensory psychology there is
a parallel phenomenon. If one places one hand in cold water and places the
other hand in hot water then simultaneously plunges both hands into warm
water, the resulting experience is fascinating: The hand moved from cold
to warm water experiences ``hotter''; the hand moved from hot water to warm
water experiences ``colder.''
One might say of these phenomenon
that what you see depends on where you've been and from where you're coming.
Many years ago, a group of researchers known as Gestalt
psychologists challenged our common-sense ideas of perception with an array
of experiments and ``tricks.'' Most of them now show up in children's activity
books.
A line with two arrow ``heads'' attached to either end
always appears shorter than a line of exactly the same measurement with
two arrow ``tails'' attached to either end of it.
Gestalt psychologists suggested that perception depends
not fully on the so-called objective reality of things and events, but is
influenced heavily by the context in which those things and events are perceived.
Technically speaking, the Gestalt credo is: every figure is influenced by
its ground or surroundings.
Artists know this better than most
of us. If one were to lay a ruler under a line of type -- even in this newspaper
-- one would discover that most of the O's, C's, G's and S's do not rest
on the line formed by the ruler but extend slightly below the so-called
base-line. (This shows more clearly when the typography is extremely large).
Typographers learned long ago that O's (or C's, G's, and
S's) placed on the base-line appear smaller than the surrounding letters.
Made slightly larger, the O's are perceived as being the same size as other
letters in the string.
These lessons carry into our worlds of politics, philosophy,
religion and, yes, journalism.
One sees the balanced budget amendment, for example, very
differently if one comes out of a Democratic context than one does coming
out of a Republican context.
One views the controversy over Palestine much differently
if one comes from the world of the Arab than if one comes from the world
of the Israeli.
One views the free flow of information
much differently if one operates in a world of espionage than if one operates
in a world of scholarship.
Journalists, being humans, are also influenced by the ``ground''
in which they operate. It's difficult for the sports journalist to avoid
becoming a ``homer''; that is, one who lets his or her sympathies for the
home team show in reports of the games.
Such harmless bias is accepted in sports journalism; indeed,
it is expected by the hometown readers.
One might say the same thing about political commentators.
One expects specific views on issues when one knows a columnist is conservative
or liberal. William F. Buckley, Anthony Lewis, Mona Charen or Robert Reno
are predictable on most issues they write about because of their well-known
political leanings.
However, daily reporters -- those who collect the information
and comments of newsmakers on the issues and events of the day -- are not
expected to be biased.
But they are!
In their choice of words; in their choice of focus; in
their choice of story outline and sequencing of events, all reporters bring
to their perception of a news story a unique ``ground'' that subtly influences
what is reported and written.
Furthermore, each reader brings to
a reported story his or her unique ``ground'' that influences how a story
is interpreted. Some see the donut while others see the hole.
This is a hard lesson for both journalist and reader, but it is one that intelligent news gathers and intelligent consumers of the news are wise to acknowledge.
Every story is multifaceted and no reporter can observe
or report on them all.
Will Rogers claimed everything he knew he got from the newspaper. But keep in mind that he was a comedian.
+ Return to Pacific Sunday Meanderings +
+National Society of Newspaper Columnists +