Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Media bias
Message-ID: <243@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 23:03:00 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.243
Posted: Tue Dec  4 23:03:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 02:59:08 EST
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 81
Summary: 

References:
Sender: 
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Chicago
Keywords: 

Jim Matthews' recent article is rather well written and deserves a reply.
He writes:

>But these [hinterland] papers don't hold a candle to the influence
>of the eastern print and video media elite -- a group that is overwhelmingly
>liberal.  Studies on the subject have shown them voting 90% for McGovern, when
>less than half that percentage of the voting citizenry did, and a majority
>go so far as to describe themselves as liberals.  

Do you have any statistics on the *owners* of newspapers and television
stations and networks?  The owners do, after all, have more than a little
say about who their editors are and what gets printed or broadcast.  The
Chicago Sun-Times, formerly a Democratic bastion, is now editorially
right-wing; not because all the editors were converted by reading a column
by William F. Buckley, but because Rupert Murdoch bought the paper.  Who
owns the American media?  Jane Fonda?  Ron Dellums?  Or are the owners more
likely to be tycoons like Murdoch and Walter Annenberg?  Granted that the
Sun-Times was a liberal paper when the Field family owned it; I am merely
saying that the evidence that journalists tend to hold liberal political
beliefs does not, by itself, allow one to conclude that the media have a
leftward slant.  By the way, do you suppose that the liberal attitudes of
journalists have anything to do with the fact that they are generally highly
educated, intelligent, and well informed?  Well, no, I suppose you don't.
But it was not necessary to be a rabid liberal to support McGovern in 1972;
it was sufficient to have a knowledge of Nixon's character and past deeds.  

>So when have you seen a major paper or network endorse Star-Wars?
>School-Prayer? Balanced-Budget Amendment?  Aid to the Contras? 

When have you seen ANY locally based newspaper or television station in the
US endorse socialism in any shape or form?  Or if you suppose that they are
merely afraid of using the word "s-c--l-sm", where are the newspapers that
advocate s-c--l-st-c policies such as massive wealth redistribution (I'm not
talking about the piddling redistribution effected by the federal income
tax), democratic control of investment, or a centrally planned economy
(many s-c--l-sts do not support this last idea, however)?  If you succeed in
finding one, I will recall the occasion on which Dr. Johnson remarked that
there was not a tree in all the Scottish Highlands; an indignant Scot
replied that there was too a tree, not ten miles from where he lived.
Doesn't the scarcity of s-c--l-st newspapers suggest that there is something
just a LITTLE BIT wrong with the idea that the media have a leftward tilt?

>...ten times as many NYT articles on human rights in Chile than on Cambodia,
>where the problem is many times worse.

Yes, and a frequent lament of conservatives is that liberals constantly harp
on the evils the US has committed or condoned in such places as El Salvador
and neglect to mention the atrocities committed by the Soviets in
Afghanistan and elsewhere.  The right generally attributes this to a liberal
guilt complex and a general attitude that right-wing regimes are worse than
those on the left.  Can you think of another possible explanation?  Give up?
How about this:  Americans are citizens of the US, not of the Soviet Union.
What are we going to do about the atrocities the Soviets commit?  Nuke them?
The influence of American criticism on Soviet actions is about nil.  On the
other hand, since the US is a democracy, our criticisms of US policy can
have an effect on the actions of the US government and hence indirectly
affect countries where the US wields much influence, such as Chile, El
Salvador, and South Africa.  Consequently, Americans who are more interested
in making the world a better place than in self-righteous chest-beating will
spend more time criticizing US policy than the actions of those over whom we
have minimal influence, such as Communist governments.

>  The American media is not socialist, but to call it conservative is to
>locate the political center somewhere to the left of Walter Mondale.

Which is exactly where it is, taking the world as a whole.

			Richard Carnes
			ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

Golden Rule for the Reagan Eighties:  Let's do it unto Them before They do
it unto Us.