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