rlh@rayssd.UUCP (03/13/85)
I think arguments over whether the media have a liberal bias or a
conservative bias (this can be debated endlessly without getting anywhere)
miss the point. There are instances of both, but as a whole the press is
diverse enough to ensure that all points of view will get a reasonably
fair hearing. I believe that the more pervasive *institutional* bias is
much more important in distorting media coverage. What appears to be
ideological bias often is really institutional bias which happens,
temporarily, to work to the benefit of the liberals or conservatives.
I believe that when the media appear biased or unfair, it can nearly
always be traced to one of these four non-idelogical factors:
(1) The media run in packs. They will swoop down on some topic (toxic
shock syndrome, say, or the Iran-Iraq war) and annoint it as "news."
After devouring it for a few weeks, they will drop the subject as
if it never existed. A recent example: TIME and NEWSWEEK just
happened to run cover stories on cocaine the same week.
(2) Just as advertising reinforces social stereotypes, political reporting
tends to reinforce the public mood, whatever it is. To a large extent
the press tells readers what they want to hear. For example, I think
most people will agree that Reagan gets more favorable treatment
from the "liberal" media than Carter did. (Imagine how Carter would
have been pilloried as "weak" and "indecisive" had *he* retreated
from Lebanon after taking 250 casualties). I attribute this not to
a conservative bias, but to the simple fact that Reagan is popular
while Carter was not. Therefore the press glosses over Reagan's
failures (no one seems to want to hear about them, anyway) and hypes
his achievements. This in turn helps to perpetuate his popularity.
With Carter this vicious cycle ran in reverse.
(3) Most political reporters are much more interested in politics than
policy. A candidate's position papers will dutifully be reported, but
thoughtful discussions on issues are rare. As a result, candidates who
pay serious attention to issues usually get less attention than they
deserve.
(4) The media tend to sensationalize political news. They react to
new political figures in a predictable way: first by building them
up in a flood of hype and positive publicity, and then by tearing
them down and looking for a scandal. Witness the press coverage
of Gary Hart last spring, and Geraldine Ferraro in the fall.
I think this model is much more successful than a theory of
ideological bias in predicting and explaining why balanced press
coverage is so rare.
Ron Henryjosh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/15/85)
> I believe that when the media appear biased or unfair, it can nearly > always be traced to one of these four non-idelogical factors: > > (1) The media run in packs. They will swoop down on some topic ... > (2) Just as advertising reinforces social stereotypes, political reporting > tends to reinforce the public mood, whatever it is. ... > (3) Most political reporters are much more interested in politics than > policy. > (4) The media tend to sensationalize political news. ... > > I think this model is much more successful than a theory of > ideological bias in predicting and explaining why balanced press > coverage is so rare. > Ron Henry I agree. What often appears to be bias is actually usually merely sensationalistic, shallow reporting of an issue without any real understanding. This is why the press so often takes the liberal position. A good example is the issue of nuclear power--the press sees a bogeyman and suddenly it's "hot". The New York Times index reveals that accidents involving radiation have received over 100 times the coverage per actuarial risk, as accidents not involving radiation. A nuclear power scare fad, as it were. --JoSH
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (03/16/85)
> What often appears to be bias is actually usually merely > sensationalistic, shallow reporting of an issue without any real > understanding. This is why the press so often takes the liberal > position. This is exactly what we critics of liberalism refer to. It is perhaps not true that conservatives are incapable of "sensationalistic, shallow reporting," but I should say that the liberal, goaded by his fantastic ideas, will tend to exagerate, distort, and generally play fast and loose with reality as he labors under his emotional delusions. This is an intuitive argument as to why the bias we sometimes see can be called a "liberal bias." Yet the point about non-ideological bias--i.e., just plain crummy work by mediocre professionals--is well taken, and probably accounts for most complaints against the media. ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett