Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: To tim sevener re media bias Message-ID: <2337@randvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 14:05:53 EST Article-I.D.: randvax.2337 Posted: Thu Mar 7 14:05:53 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 07:36:17 EST References: <700@decwrl.UUCP> <498@whuxl.UUCP> <2329@randvax.UUCP> <506@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 25 > from tim sevener whuxl!orb > Publishers determine not only political endorsements but the whole > political tone of a paper. Endorsements are merely the most visible > aspect of this control. But it can also be seen in the political > columnists represented, and the general editorial policy. There have > been MANY instances of reporter's stories killed or drastically changed > because it does not suit the newspaper's publisher. There have also > been many instances of reporters themselves being canned for not > toeing the paper's political line. Does anybody remember the canning > of Daniel Schorr? Even the former editor of the "liberal" New York > Times , John Oakes, was eased out of his job for offending the business > interests on the Times corporate board too often. (this is related > in the "American Establishment" by Mark and Leonard Silk if anybody > wants to look it up) If the publishers really "control" as you seem to think they do, then why do they allow conflicting points of view to be printed? Why would they allow pieces about Reagan's most recent "misremembering" of the facts to appear? Why would an article presenting a favorably picture of the leftists in Central America get printed? Why does Afghanistan go largely unnoticed instead of being continually presented as evidence that the Soviets are out to conquer the world and we should arm to the teeth? Lauri