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