The Monkey Cage

Tiller was famous? Really? Surely not to the average newspaper reader, though they are better informed than most.

The media bias explanation is a far better one.

I was thinking the Tiller assassination got more coverage because anti-abortion violence is the result of an organized political movement. Tiller’s death is just the latest in a series of strategic acts designed to achieve a certain end.

If we start to see a pattern of military recruiters being shot at I suspect the media will start to pay more attention.

Jim: With an N=1, we will not resolve this. But I’m really making a relative argument. People who are better known killed get more attention when they are murdered than people who are unknown. Obviously, other things matter: cable news is often attentive when the victim is attractive, a child, etc. But the notoriety of the victim is quite important. Given the paucity of evidence for ideological bias (liberal or conservative) in the media, I think media coverage tends to originate from the other incentives that govern newsworthiness.

Dan: I think your point is relevant too.

I guess we should call this Sides Law.

Jim: Why is a “liberal bias” equated with the belief that the recruiter’s murder is being downplayed? What is the ideological connection? Liberals hate soldiers, ergo they don’t care if they are shot??

Dan is right. There is a history of abortion doctors, and Tiller himself, being shot at. O’Reilly frequently called him a baby killer. I’m sure others said worse.

However, the recruiter’s murder, if politically motivated, would imply terorrism. So, I’m surprised we have not heard some more about it. It may be that once the gag order on attys for both sides in the Ark. murder gets lifted, more facts will come out and there will be more press coverage.

John’s “law” or generalization or whatever it is is certainly correct — almost definitional: If a famous person gets killed, it’s more newsworthy than if the victim had been just an average, non-famous person. But like Jim Gimpel, I tend to doubt the specific application to Tiller. Whether someone is “famous” or not is irresolvable, I suppose; I might say that Damiano Cunego is famous in the U.S., but I’ll bet John has never heard of him. (He’s an Italian cyclist.) For that matter, it might even be the case that until he got killed, Tiller was less famous in the U.S. than Damiano Cunego. At least my n=1 introspection suggests as much, for I had heard of Cunego but not Tiller. Anyway, even though I can’t define a threshold value for “famous,” I’m willing to say that I don’t think Tiller is above it.

my observation from far too much time at cnn.com is that it’s all about babies.

When the story broke, not only did my wife know who Tiller was, she correctly surmised he was the victim.

However, I ‘win’, because I know who Damiano Cunego is and she’s never heard of him.

The relative importance of Cunego to Tiller is not the issue. If Damiano Cunego is on his bike and gets hit and killed by a motorist it would get more press than most bikers. Tiller has been attacked before, it’s a standing issue; O’Reilly and others have been taunting him repeatedly for sometime, so he’s famous in some circles (and that’s what got him killed).

But I still don’t see the logical connection to liberalism and coverage of Tiller. I’d assume that advocates that support access to abortions would want as little attention to him or his controversial practice as possible. It’s not like they can use his death to promote much; maybe they raise it to call for additional security for clinics or mention this as a way to raise money from their supporters if they want to be cold about it, but that’s it. But I don’t see how that relates to liberalism among journalists and what they cover.

Lee, my reply to you is essentially Doug’s. The article’s claim is about relative disparities in coverage. That is my claim as well. There’s no need to conjure up a point estimate of each person’s absolute level of fame.

I simply disagree. To say that Tiller is more famous than Long is to say that my cat Gooseberry, who has gotten two “Monkey Cage” stories, is more famous than my cat “Doughy,” who has gotten only one. The fact is that neither of them is famous. Relative schmelative.

I’d say the difference in coverage is probably accounted for by the differential salience of late-term abortion and military recruiting as policy issues. John would say that that’s a “relative” difference (as all differences are, of course), but it’s also a difference that — or it least it seems so to me — is big enough to matter.

The policy issues at stake could certainly be relevant. That was, I think, Dan’s point above.

But, Lee, you descend to pedantry. The point isn’t whether Tiller is “famous.” That word is irrelevant to my basic point. The point is that he is better-known than Long. In fact, he’s a bona fide public figure — one who has been repeatedly in the news for years. That makes his murder more newsworthy.

Lee is clearly guilty of “Gooseberry bias” as he likely controls posts about his cats. :)

I wonder if maybe everyone here is missing the point. I understand and partially agree with the “famous” argument. Certainly that recruiter was murdered because of what he was. But that was mostly symbolic, in my estimation. I don’t want anyone to conclude that I don’t consider his life as less valuable. But his killer, as far as we know, was attacking a symbol, not a person.

Tiller’s killer, as far as we know, was attacking a person known to him who he thought was likely to be committing a specific crime. That distinction seems obvious to me.

That seems “newsworthy” to me, despite any possible bias. Any person raving about the crimes that “the system” may have committed and lashing out at “the system” isn’t especially atypical and thus not quite as “newsworthy.”

Relative famousness doesn’t even enter into the equation, as far as I’m concerned. It’s the reasoning behind the crime and the target of the crime (albeit assumed on my part) that makes the story important.

We also have to consider that most popular news outlets just aren’t very good at their job in general. But that’s a different argument, I suppose.

There’s much more to this, too. Attacking a doctor who does abortions strikes all sorts of other emotional chords.

The McVeigh-Roeder Theorem: in order to get media coverage of an act of terror, one must slaughter many innocents or one (in)famous one.

John, who having dashed off an ill-considered post, is now losing the post-post argument, resorts to the scoundrel’s refuge of name calling. I am a pedant for focusing on “more famous” when he said “better known.” Hmm. I wonder who the pedant really is in this convesation. Okay: By his logic, Gooseberry is better known than Doughy — I daren’t say more famous — and by my account that distinction is just silly, because neither of them is well enough known to make such fine distinctions.

John does make one empirical assertion that’s worth considering: that Tiller has gotten lots of news coverage over the years. If I get some time — I’m busy today reading one of John’s papers and making pedantic suggestions — I’ll weigh in on that with some data; based on the little bit that I spotted yesterday, Tiller’s profile looks awfully low — not as low as Gooseberry’s or, for that matter, Damiano Cunego’s, but way down there.

Lee,

The original post said: “The media devotes disproportionate attention to people who are well-known, or at least better known.” The relative claim — “better known” — was there all along. Yes, by all means, do some analysis. If you find that George Tiller garnered more media coverage before his death than William Long, the data will support my hypothesis. A quickie Lexis search from June 1, 1980 until the day before Tiller’s murder turns up 1,000 news articles. I’m sure I don’t even need to search for articles about Mr. Long prior to his death.

To be clear: I don’t think that the relative notoriety of the victim is the only factor in media coverage of killings. But surely it’s far more important — in this particular case and across cases — than Benedetto’s preferred bogeyman.

I think it’s fair to say that John’s use of “famous” was probably not the best choice of words but it really doesn’t undermine his point.

Perhaps “public figure” would have worked better, to use a journalism school term. (Go Heels!)

i’m telling you it’s babies.

aborted babies
abused babies
murdered babies
dropped babies
too many babies
not enough babies
adopted babies
cute babies
ugly babies
adult babies

You present some evidence for one hypothesis here — that Tiller received notice because of his fame, but present none for your dismissal of liberal bias. Where is your evidence to disprove this hypothesis? The recent Pew study of journalist’s views and media content studies of the 2008 election provide evidence contrary to your dismissal hypothesis. Why is this evidence incorrect or inappropriate to your hypothesis? It seems your ideological bias is showing here, not your best social science abilities.

liberal babies

Steve: You don’t know me or my political views, so it seems a little premature (and ad hominem) to accuse me of “ideological bias.” I’ll repeat myself: with an N=1, we cannot adjudicate conclusively between alternative theories. My post is based on conjecture — albeit conjecture that I think is born out by a casual examination of who the media pays attention to (public figures of various kinds) and who the media tends to ignore (ordinary citizens, except under extraordinary circumstances).

Citing the political views of journalists is not sufficient evidence for ideological bias. Yes, journalists have opinions, but most also are operating under a strong professional norm of objectivity. This leads them to cloak their opinions behind “he said, she said” and other tropes of workaday reporting. It is incorrect to assume that media coverage is ideologically biased just because journalists have ideologies.

Ultimately, there is little evidence for any systematic ideological bias in media coverage — liberal or conservative. If you look at the previous posts I linked to in my post, you’ll see some discussion of relevant literature.

Tragically, there was yet another nutball shooting someone today, this time at the Holocaust Museum.

Currently it’s the lead story at NYTimes.com, cnn.com, latimes.com, washingtonpost.com, google news, and foxnews.com.

Obviously it doesn’t disprove the Sides rule (it couldn’t, because neither victim was famous prior to his death). But the different treatment is odd.

Just to complete the circle, after John and I have each declared ourselves the winner of this disagrement.

I did a Lexis-Nexis search today on appearances of “George Tiller” major world newspapers. In 2007, the total of such appearances was, as I recall, nine. In 2008, eleven (of which six were in the WASHINGTON TIMES, which virtually no one reads, and one was in the NEW ZEALAND HERALD). In the months preceding his death, “George Tiller” did pop up more frequently in the press, typically in brief mentions of him in stories focusing on Kathleen Sebelius.

John and I will presumably disagree about this, too, but in my mind a handful of mentions per year in the entirety of major world newspapers (including, of course, major U.S. newspapers) doesn’t make one much of “a public figure” or qualify as “repeatedly in the news for years” (words John used to describe Tiller). But there i go again, citing point estimates to make my point. Whatever was I thinking? Introducing some evidence into this conversation is clearly off-limits.

Lee: We are both gracious in victory. As you can see from my comment above, a Lexis search over a longer time span and involving more media outlets generated many more stories (~1,000). Tiller was also discussed repeatedly on O’Reilly — something like 25 different shows, if memory serves me — and that wouldn’t show up on a Lexis search of major world newspapers. In any case, he’s certainly better-known than William Long, and that was my point.

Joel: I’ve been distracted by other, more critical comments, but your humor is appreciated.

Thomas: The Holocaust Museum shooting constitutes an interesting comparison to the William Long shooting, since, as you note, neither victim was a public figure, and so the two shootings are similar in that respect. My guess is that the Holocaust Museum shooting will garner more media coverage than the William Long shooting. Potential reasons why: the setting at the museum, the DC location, the fact that it comes after the Tiller killing and so can be put into a broader narrative. Lest this thread get any longer, I’m not advocating for any of these in particular, but just generating some hypotheses.

I doubt the DC shooting yesterday will get sustained coverage, but it is likely to get some because the nature (an anti-semetic attack) fits with other recent attacks on Jewish insitutions. Likewise, had the murder of the recruiter happened during a period of greater general protest about the military (e.g., during Vietnam) or following similar domestic attacks, I think it would have taken on greater interest.

Then again, coverage is very much subject to what else is happening in the world (small n problem again, I guess).