arndt@lymph.DEC (02/21/85)
Tim: I enjoyed your posting. However, I hardly would agree with your claim the the 'worst case of media abuse was the canceling of a political debate in favor of commercial broad- casting.' I would have thought the Brady Bunch would have been much more in the public interest!!! Anyway, don't the good citizens of this fine country (it IS a fine country, isn't it Tim??) HAVE access to the media via equal access laws, lobbys, etc. Not perfect, not for EVERY citizen as you said you should be (surely hyperbole on your part) but access non the less. I mean, if you don't like the violence, smut, smarmy soaps, animal programs showing wolves eating baby deer, or whatever you can complain - and effect what happens!!! So as I said in my origional posting to which you replied, there DOES seem to be a way for John Q. Citizen to make himself heard. [That's 'Affect' what happen. (thanks mom)] ZZZZZZZZZZZ Regards, Ken Arndt
apm@cmu-ri-isl1.ARPA (Andrew Mendler) (03/06/85)
"Classifications both direct and reflect our thinking. The way we put things in order represents the way we think" -- Stephen Jay Gould There was a call for evidence of liberal bias, to demonstrate a systematic distortion of the truth, proof that the reporter's views color and shape the the news we see and read. If you agree with the beginning quote then I submit to you that I have that proof. 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. Of stories referring to "extremists" of the left or right, 56 percent referred to rightists and five percent to leftists; the remainder of the stories referred to both left and right. There were 58 stories using the term "archconservative", and there was one story (one! uno!) using the term "archliberal". If you wish to have evidence which you can confirm yourself, Nexis lists 846 stories that have appeared in the nation's press in the last few years using the word "ultraconservative". Only 118 stories have used the word "ultraliberal". I could go on but I think I have made my point. Politicians are "ultra" and "arches" and "far rightists" by one standard only - the standard of the prevailing opinion within the national journalistic community. Ted Kennedy is not an "ultraliberal" because, to the average Washington reporter, he seems rather moderate. Drew Mendler apm@cmu-ri-isl1.arpa "LIVE FREE OR DIE"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/08/85)
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