Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Reply to tim sevener re. Media usage Message-ID: <399@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 18:42:16 EST Article-I.D.: cybvax0.399 Posted: Thu Mar 7 18:42:16 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 06:21:39 EST References: <203@cmu-ri-isl1.ARPA> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 42 Summary: In article <203@cmu-ri-isl1.ARPA> apm@cmu-ri-isl1.ARPA (Andrew Mendler) writes: > Evidence that the @b(MEDIA) is liberal can be demostrated by the number of > times they label people "conservative", as though that is something out of > the ordinary. While rare is the time someone is called "liberal" since that > is what @i(they) see as the "status quo". > > In particular, during the five year period ending October 31, 1984, The > Washington Post used the term "far right" 390 times and "far left" 131 times. > "Ultraright" was 47 times, "ultraleft" was only 12 times; "Ultraconservative" > was used 74 times, "ultraliberal" was used only 27 times. A classic case of abuse of statistics. Let me list three reasons why these statistics may be meaningless. First, it is possible that there is no bias, and there actually are more ultraconservatives and ultrarightists than ultraliberals and ultraleftists. In which case the numbers could even "indicate" a conservative bias (given the correct proportions.) Second, it is possible that the ultrarightists and ultraconservatives make more news than their counterparts. Again, there could be a conservative bias in promoting or concealing their news. Third, those terms are rare. According to your numbers above, one of them is used only once every two days. Thus, the "bias" might be real, but ineffective. The rest of the note was equally invallid. If there is bias in the media, I would say that it is too minor to be clearly shown (at least in this case.) My opinion is that Reagan and other (past) politicians bring this red herring up to explain away opposition to their policies. Jimmy Carter also faced media hostility. He didn't use that fact manipulatively the way Reagan does, to create an enemy for his side to rally about in opposition. The fact is that it is one of the jobs of the media to skeptically view the pronouncements of any administration. Else they become mere organs of propaganda. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh