Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site we53.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!bmt From: bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: AP Bias or Error ? Message-ID: <336@we53.UUCP> Date: Sun, 7-Jul-85 02:24:06 EDT Article-I.D.: we53.336 Posted: Sun Jul 7 02:24:06 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 00:49:15 EDT References: <351@npois.UUCP> <586@cybvax0.UUCP> <508@umcp-cs.UUCP> <725@utcs.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Technologies - St. Louis Missouri Lines: 43 >Journalism is a very competative profession, and a very competative >business. Reporters are in most cases very concerned about the >quality of their coverage and the accuracy of their stories (so they >don't get fired, sued, or ridiculed), as are their employers (so >they keep their ratings up). I'll take your word for it; but personally, I've never met a journalist with a major news organization( and I've known a few) who had a very high regard for factual accuracy. The main thing that they seem interested in is the ratings, and for that you don't need facts, just flash. The other thing is that their bosses feel(this was also revealed in the survey) that a big part of their job is to CHANGE the way people think so as to agree with their way of thinking. >Implying that personal religious (christian?) conviction is >proportional to the quality of news coverage is one helluva non-sequitor. I don't think this was implied. The critical factor is what the intent of the bias is. If these people are trying to influence the way people think, and they have a great deal of power to do so( the same survey also showed that they perceived themselves as the most powerful force in that regard, and that they felt it should be so), then I think that what they believe about what I call basic human issues has a lot to do with the quality of what they publish. The fact that they have a higher regard for how they can influence people than for factual accuracy(my observation) is more than enough to cast doubts on the quality of the product. And while we're on non-sequiturs, how about the assumption that someone is more qualified to judge moral issues if he's been through more of the media hype and educational brainwashing than someone else? Now, of course, those are my opinions, but... There is an underlying assumption that more education gives one the right to shape the way others think by shaping the facts that one gives out. When I was a boy, my dad used to call that "lying". I'm not sure what they call it now. Would have been nice then, maybe I could have avoided those sessions with _the Belt_. I will resist the urge to compare this with Nazism... oh, well, it just slipped out. Sorry. Well, not really... Keep to the truth. brian