Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxh.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxh!stu3 From: stu3@mhuxh.UUCP (Mark Modig) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Media bias Message-ID: <253@mhuxh.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 14:39:52 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxh.253 Posted: Mon Dec 3 14:39:52 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 00:25:45 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Summit, NJ Lines: 104 ">" = From Tim Sevener (whuxl!orb) >... The media are, in fact , overwhelmingly >conservative and status-quo oriented. This means that rather than actively >distorting facts, such newspapers either fail to present certain facts or >else bury them back in those parts of the paper where they are never read. >The media DO have a major influence in terms of how they phrase their headlines >and so forth. Many people will just skim an article and be heavily influenced >by headlines which may actively contradict information given on page 25 where >the end of the front-page article is given. I disagree. I am getting pretty tired of hearing about all these charges flying back and forth about "liberal" and "conservative" biases. Sure there are cases of perceived bias; I have even cited a few myself, and here comes another one... one of the best newspapers I have seen at burying the facts in the back pages is the same New York Times, that famous bastion of media conservatism. Example: An article saying that Geraldine Ferraro and her husband, John Zaccaro, had paid some back taxes on their finances and that they were going to pay more, an article I thought should have been on page 1, or at least two or three, was buried back well into the teens of the first page of that day's New York Times. I judge a newspaper's "bias" by considering both articles printed AND the opinions expressed in the editorial pages. By this criterion, I hardly think you have a basis for alleging a conservative bias. Besides, I seem to recall an article a while back that said that an overwhelming number of reporters that cover politics vote Democratic. How, then, are we to reconcile the two? In fact, about the only constant I can find is that the editorial sections contain criticisms of current local, state, and Federal government policy and all sorts of real helpful suggestions for correcting these perceived defaults, along with praise for events or happenings they approve of, and suggestions for making these things even better. Yes, individual papers have differences (I prefer to think of them as personalities, but I tend to anthropomorphise (or -ize) too much anyway), but on the whole, it is very difficult to make general sweeping statements about the media as a whole, except that they love to criticize and analyze, which is, in part, what they are supposed to do. >When is the last time you saw ANY newspaper present information about the >distribution of wealth in this country? Occasionally they present information >about the distribution of income, never about the distribution of wealth. >This bias is generally hidden--who can realize the *absence* of pertinent >facts? But the conservative bias of the media becomes apparent when push comes >to shove at election time and newspapers reveal their true colors. >The "liberal media" is a myth. Yes, the liberal media is a myth, but so is the conservative media. A few more points: 1) What is wealth? How is it measured? Where do you get reliable data from. I have seen articles in the L.A. Times on and off that purport to measure wealth in some manner. Trouble is, I have never necessarily seen a definition that I am completely happy with. But if you really want to know, go to a library and poke around, or ask the reference librarian for help. I'm not tied to just seeing what the papers publish or the nightly news says. 2) Although endorsing a presidential candidate can be an indicator as to a paper's political outlook, one decision is hardly enough data to raise the red flag and point the all-impaling finger of Truth at the offender. Obviously a lot of Democrats cast votes for Reagan. Reagan even won in states where there is a Liberal party. Does that mean the media is biased for endorsing Reagan? I don't think so. I think people voted as much against a candidate as for one in this election, and that goes for both candidates. Perhaps the papers felt this way, too. It also seems fairly clear that people voted for Reagan the person (and showman), rather than Reagan the politician. Papers that I saw pointed this out, too. In any case, I don't think one decision should count as much as the opinions expressed year-in and year-out on the paper's editorial pages. 3) Running a newspaper can be a logistical nightmare. There is only so much space on the front page (Stop the presses! Switch to 1/2 pt. type.. we've got another story for the front page), and decisions have to be made as to what stays and what is put elsewhere. The decisions that are made are not always one we would agree with; the example I cited above is a case in point. The case can be similar for a news broadcast. 4) Running a paper or TV network has other problems. You have got to make your product attractive to people in some sense, and that includes choices as to what stories to cover and what stories not to cover. It's hard to say whether the people control the media by watching and buying what they like to hear and see (including such things as comics, sports coverage, business, local news, weather, etc), or whether the media control the people by arbitrarily deciding what they will see. I think that papers generally reflect the attitudes of their readers; papers in a conservative part of the country will probably be more conservative in philosophy then those in an area that is generally adjudged more liberal. And, as I said before, papers in general do seem to like to go after the government, and it doesn't seem to change too much no matter who is in office and what the philosophies of that media entity are. The liberal media myth is dead! The conservative media myth is dead! Long live the bewildered media! Mark Modig ihnp4!attunix!mom ^^^^^^^----new address