orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/24/86)
nrh seems to have ignored the most piercing point of my article reporting numerous cases in which liberal viewpoints were simply refused to air ads *even if they were willing to pay for them*. This is the graphic illustration of the *conservative* bias of the media. Every presidential election year if one investigates the wire services survey of newspaper endorsements one will find that Republicans are endorsed by 60-70% of newspapers. In 1984 some 70% of newspapers endorsed Ronald Reagan - higher than the usual conservative bias but in the usual range of 60-70%. The two articles I cited from the NYTimes showed that this bias does not just show up in *endorsements* it also shows up quite graphically in the refusal to even air *paid* ads by groups opposing militarism. Moreover nrh makes a curious argument: > > >/* Written 9:08 am Mar 17, 1986 by orb@whuxl.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ > >Many people have questioned my claims of media bias. Others have > >stated that there is always freedom of speech, regardless of > >access to public places like Malls, by using the electronic media. > > PING! Will all those keeping track of Tim's bogus argumentation > please note here that his implication is that his opponents > argued that all electronic media were free and open, whereas in fact > the argument was made that in a market situation, one can find > other outlets (SUCH AS television stations, and other malls) when particular > malls are closed to you. > Now this is a rather curious "free market". I had always thought that a free market meant that products or services should be offered to all with the money to pay for them. This is supposedly the glory of the truly free market - as a merchant I will sell shoes to *anyone* be they black or white, fascist, communist or atheist. Now we find groups with the money to pay for ads being turned down while other groups are being provided similar time for free "in the public interest". Does this or does this not illustrate a clear bias? > > >Mobil Oil does it, Polluting Companies do it to prove they are > >not polluting, so surely citizens concerned about population > >control, preventing war and other issues should *at least* > >be able to *BUY* time on TV to present their opinions. > > And indeed they can. Not all stations, of course, but I'll bet > there are also a few that have turned down the polluting companies. > Hmmm, really? I would like you to document a single case in which a polluting company was refused paid time for an ad. > > Your implication is that one cannot buy such time. Indeed, in certain > circumstances one cannot. So? Can you find anyone who said that > all television stations would look favorably upon your message? > I didn't realize that selling any product or service in a free market was dependent on "looking favorably upon the message". Moreover it is curious that TV stations had no qualms about placing cigarette commercials on their stations - was it because they wished to promote lung cancer rates? I have seen numerous ads promoting nuclear energy on different TV stations - do these TV stations have a magic solution to the problems of nuclear wastes which lasts for centuries? Moreover isn't it interesting the *type* of bias this represents in the supposedly "liberal" media? I patiently await your documentation of a single case in which a polluting company was refused paid advertising time. tim sevener whuxn!orb