Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: To tim sevener re media bias Message-ID: <506@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 12:27:04 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.506 Posted: Mon Mar 4 12:27:04 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Mar-85 03:27:53 EST References: <700@decwrl.UUCP> <498@whuxl.UUCP> <2329@randvax.UUCP> Organization: /usr/exptools/lib/netnews/myorg Lines: 36 > From Laurinda Rohn: > No, you haven't proved that there is a conservative bias in the press. > Think about it for a minute. Who determines what candidates will be > endorsed by a paper? The reporters? Not hardly. Even the editor? > Not usually. Who? The publisher and/or owner! Now, what sorts of > people are they? Well, they often tend to be rather well off financially. > And what party do "The Rich" traditionally belong to? Republican, yes? > So what candidates are the publisher/owners going to have their papers > endorse? Do they care much about how their staff feels? Not often. > The fact is that an overwhelming percentage of the nation's reporters, > those who actually cover the news, are liberals and/or Democrats. This is an argument *against* the conservative bias of the press?(!!!) 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) Many of the reporters who covered Vietnam realized that something was drastically wrong with the American involvement there. But that didn't stop newspaper editors (again, even the "liberal" New York Times) from accepting and supporting the American involvement. Time Magazine was an especially bad offender in doctoring reporter's stories on what was actually happening in Vietnam. The majority of autoworkers are Democrats also. Does this mean that General Motors will support liberal policies? Your argument contradicts itself! tim sevener whuxl!orb