matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (03/06/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (03/06/85)
Mr. Sevener's arguments to prove the existence of a conservative media bias continue to miss the mark. By concentrating exclusively on the mass of small-town newpapers, and endorsements made by their ownership, he misses the most fertile areas for bias. In particular, he distorts several critical issues: News vs. Editorial Endorsements are the most explicitly subjective statements that a publication makes, and for that reason I'm not sure they *can* be biased. News, however, carries the burden of being free of opinion, and thus any injection of ideology is a matter of concern. But news is largely mono- polized by the national news organizations, a group Mr. Sevener grants to be liberally inclined. My hometown paper, in Moses Lake, Washington, doesn't have reporters in Moscow or Pretoria, so it picks up stories from the N.Y. Times and runs them. This makes the circulation figures cited by Mr. Sevener meaningless -- the various news services reach farther than their own editorial pages. And, I would argue, they are more significant. Newspapers vs. TV In several postings on this subject, Mr. Sevener has never touched on the subject of TV networks, and with good reason. They are uniformly liberal, by their own admission (this past election night a CBS commentator informed us that the American people were "making a mistake"!!! Just voting isn't enough--we must vote correctly!) And they have far more influence than the hometown paper. When the choice is between a page and half of clipped articles from news services, (and that's often all the national news a small paper will run) and Dan Rather in full color, it's no surprise that people go to the latter for news. As above, the local tv stations have little say, since they just relay clips from the networks. Management vs. Reporters In Sevener's eyes, the media is twisted by a bunch of conservative newspaper owners. In the first place, I'm not sure that owners are that conservative. To say they are on the basis of their position is a pitiful piece of pseudo-Marxist analysis, and totally unsubstatiated by evidence. And for every anecdote you have about the former chairman of Time, Harry Luce, there's another one about the Post's liberal owner Katharine Graham or her sidekick Benjamin Bradlee. Furthermore, I would contend that owners don't have the influence of the liberal reporter corp. They can't deal with every piece that goes out, and they concentrate their influence on the op-ed page. Every news story, however, comes through the eyes of a reporter, who, 80% or more of the time, is a veteran McGovern supporter. I don't see how the most conservative owner could even neutralize this leaning, much less turn it conservative. Where's the center? Finally, the whole question of bias necessitates picking a center of political belief and condemning anything that deviates. Mr. Sevener identifies as "conservative" the fact that the Times runs articles on Afghanistan. As if *not* running such articles is "middle-of-the-road"!! Maybe the media is conservative when seen from Mr. Sevener's vantage point, but that still leaves it to the left of most of the country. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/07/85)
In response to Jim:
It is very difficult to settle this issue on the basis of impressions
or our views of the media's reporting. We would have to sample
what gets sent out by the national news services versus what actually
gets published by local papers. For example: I would be willing to
bet your smalltown paper did not carry the report that the Pentagon
admitted that the Nuclear Winter effect was valid. At the same time
they also probably did not carry the report in the New York Times
several weeks ago about the bloodshed in Cambodia. One report
favors a liberal perspective, the other is more likely to be cited
by conservatives. (tho I am very much concerned with murders *anywhere*)
My basis for saying that most publishers are wealthy and conservative
is simply that all surveys I have seen show this bias. The fact that
70% of newspapers endorse Republicans tends to confirm the conservative
nature of newspaper publishers.
As for TV news: I hardly ever watch the network news. Sometimes I watch
the MacNeil-Lehr hour on PBS and that seems to be very informative.
They also make sure to bring guests representing opposing viewpoints
when considering an issue in a discussion format, which they do every show.
One reason I do not watch TV news is that I cannot stomach the local news.
Frankly it is disgusting. The other nite the local news began:
"murder, rape , 3 injured.......who were the animals who could do such
a thing?....."
I feel that the local news has no right to label any human being "an animal".
I also question just how this informs me of anything. The classic case of
terrible reporting is the Goetz case which has been a major item in local
news reports. I refer to my other postings on this.
What I would like to see is media that are neither conservative nor liberal
but which present many sides of important issues in an informative manner.
Unfortunately that is sadly lacking................
tim sevener whuxl!orbphl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (03/08/85)
>In response to Jim: >............................... For example: I would be willing to >bet your smalltown paper did not carry the report that the Pentagon >admitted that the Nuclear Winter effect was valid. At the same time >they also probably did not carry the report in the New York Times >several weeks ago about the bloodshed in Cambodia. .......... > >As for TV news: I hardly ever watch the network news. ................. > >What I would like to see is media that are neither conservative nor liberal >but which present many sides of important issues in an informative manner. >Unfortunately that is sadly lacking................ > tim sevener whuxl!orb The Longmont(pop. 20,000), Colorado, TIMES-CALL front paged both articles. Some of my more left-of-center friends who live in Boulder, a somewhat liberal college town, refer to Longmont as "Redneck City" on their more charitable days. They do this because we take pride in the fact that less than ten percent of our population has been contaminated with a college education in one of those damn liberal universities. So much for your theory. The media you would like to see exists already, Tim, but you can't see it. You have to listen to it. It is called international shortwave radio. Radio Moscow World Service Deutch Welle Radio Canada International Kol Israel Radio South Africa VOA BBC Radio Peking Radio Habana Radio Swiss International Voice of the Islamic Peoples Republic There are many more. Some are hard to hear because the US is jamming the signal. They all beam their views into the US in english. All you have to do is listen. Try it some evening. - Phil