arndt@lymph.DEC (02/24/85)
". . . no media bias in this country." QUICK tim, WHICH country are you speaking from???? Now that you've convinced yourself that there's no bias, why won't anyone ELSE believe you??? (Yes, yes LIBERAL bias, I mean) Gee, how come all the smucks who read those rags you know so much about and watch the T V don't agree with you?? Do yourself a favor and ask ONE other person if they think there is a liberal bias to the news. I mean, my word man, the press jokes about it. I DO think it is getting less now because they (like is happening to Congress and the Courts) are awakening to the fact that they are not trusted by the (dare I say it!) THE PEOPLE. The COMMON people. You know, the ones who if only they had the time and the brains to sit down with you to have you explain it all to them, would agree with you. You got any other funny ideas??? Regards, Ken Arndt
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/26/85)
> from Ken Arndt: > Gee, how come all the smucks who read those rags you know so much about and > watch the T V don't agree with you?? > > Do yourself a favor and ask ONE other person if they think there is a liberal > bias to the news. I mean, my word man, the press jokes about it. "Truth is not decided by an opinion poll" That is point number one. Point number two is: "What poll are you citing?" The final point is that lacking evidence, it seems you feel forced to appeal to prejudice. It is one thing to have an opinion that the press has a "liberal bias". (I think it would be easier to prove a status quo / conservative bias). It is another thing to prove it or present evidence of it. I have presented very concrete evidence: the actual political endorsements of the nation's newspapers. Those endorsements are *overwhelmingly* conservative! Thus I would argue there is a *conservative* bias in the nation's press. This conservative bias is represented in the very mechanism by which "news" is made as described by Hans Gerth. (I forget the exact title of his book) "News" is largely created by leaders of bureaucracies and organizations. Thus, the President for example, as leader of the largest bureaucracy has enormous power to shape the news. Members of the cabinet as well have great access to the media. Members of the cabinet are overwhelmingly chosen from the upper class. Domhoff's book, "Who Rules America", documents the upper class origins of cabinet members. This does not mean there is a "conspiracy", nor does it mean that the upper class is of one monolithic opinion. But it does mean that coming from backgrounds of wealth and privilege (and generally owning quite large chunks of it while holding office) these people are very prone to protect such wealth and privilege. They are also prone to represent their own bureaucracies- thus Caspar Weinberger so crassly defends the Pentagon budget. People who are *not* heads of some bureaucracy or organization just do not get access to the media. Thus such groups have resorted to demonstrations and other means to attempt to get their views across. Earlier you said groups could always get access to the media: according to a "Currents" show on Sunday nite on the local PBS station *even if they PAY for commercial airtime groups can be denied access to the media*! It is entirely up to the networks and station managers to determine if a commercial is "too controversial"- according to Peter Sandman of Rutgers on this show, networks and station managers *have* refused to air commercials for the United Auto Workers and other groups. I would like to see you refute the hypothesis that the media has a *conservative* bias. tim sevener whuxl!orb "That nut said the Earth is round- but we *all* know the Earth is *flat*"
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (02/28/85)
> It is one thing to have an opinion that the press has a "liberal bias". > (I think it would be easier to prove a status quo / conservative bias). > It is another thing to prove it or present evidence of it. > I have presented very concrete evidence: the actual political endorsements of > the nation's newspapers. Those endorsements are *overwhelmingly* conservative! > I would like to see you refute the hypothesis that the media has a > *conservative* bias. > tim sevener whuxl!orb You have presented your endorsements=bias argument before, but it doesn't wash. Any survey of the country's vast number of newspapers will find that they generally reflect the citizens they serve -- i.e. they vote Republican in presidential elections. Look at the Eastern news elite, however, and you find un-alloyed leftism that doesn't just give endorsements, but even twists news. In the seventies, when 3 million died at the hand of socialists in Cambodia, the New York Times ran ten times as many articles about the human's rights situation in Chile. And while the election endorsement of some small-town paper doesn't reach anyone but it's readers, the news stories from the Times, the Post, and the Globe are relayed from coast to coast. And let's not forget our friends at the networks -- Dan Rather, whose opposition to the administration is a matter of public record, and the rest. The surveys done after the 1972 election found that over 80% of this group were for McGovern, while only this misguided state would vote for him. Your assertions of a conservative bias are humorous to a point. I loved how you pointed to the posted Good Housekeeping list of admired men (which included Reagan, Falwell, Nixon) as evidence of conservative bias -- but it was a poll of readers!! And that's the point -- the people of this country are far more conservative than you give them credit, so conservative that I can't think of a mainstream newspaper or magazine that isn't to the left of them. So Murdoch's papers and the USA Today will fare well, but that isn't bias -- it's catering to the masses. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (02/28/85)
> It is one thing to have an opinion that the press has a "liberal bias". > (I think it would be easier to prove a status quo / conservative bias). > It is another thing to prove it or present evidence of it. > I have presented very concrete evidence: the actual political endorsements of > the nation's newspapers. Those endorsements are *overwhelmingly* conservative! > Thus I would argue there is a *conservative* bias in the nation's press. No, you haven't proved that there is a conservative bias in the press. Think about it for a minute. Who determines what candidates will be endorsed by a paper? The reporters? Not hardly. Even the editor? Not usually. Who? The publisher and/or owner! Now, what sorts of people are they? Well, they often tend to be rather well off financially. And what party do "The Rich" traditionally belong to? Republican, yes? So what candidates are the publisher/owners going to have their papers endorse? Do they care much about how their staff feels? Not often. The fact is that an overwhelming percentage of the nation's reporters, those who actually cover the news, are liberals and/or Democrats. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/28/85)
Ken Arndt writes: >Now that you've convinced yourself that there's no bias, why won't anyone >ELSE believe you??? (Yes, yes LIBERAL bias, I mean) I disagree with Ken Arndt with some trepidation, but anyone who believes that the US media lean to the left should carefully compare their coverage of the Nicaraguan elections last fall with their coverage of the Salvadoran elections in 1982. Neither of these elections could be termed democratic except by seriously stretching the meaning of the term, and if anything, the Salvadoran elections were more of a sham. Yet although we heard all about the undemocratic aspects of the Nicaraguan elections from the media, we heard little about the Salvadoran elections to suggest that they were not thoroughly democratic and legitimate (the peasants were lining up by the thousands to vote, etc.). As a result of this type of news coverage, many Americans believe that El Salvador has been taking "steps toward democracy" due to the enlightened policies of RR & Co. Just ask Raymond Bonner, recently transferred from his duties as correspondent in El Salvador for the NYT. Or read his book *Weakness and Deceit* for some of the news on El Salvador that the NYT, or at least many lesser newspapers, didn't think was fit to print (I don't know whether Bonner claims that the NYT suppressed stories he filed.) I'm well aware that there are a good many articles and TV features that tend to provide support for liberal and left positions. (One of the charming things about the WSJ is the way the front page, the nation's best in my opinion, often rains on the editorial page's parade.) But to prove a bias you have to demonstrate a systematic distortion of the truth, and this is not an easy task, whether you believe the slant is to the left or to the right. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/03/85)
> No, you haven't proved that there is a conservative bias in the press. > Think about it for a minute. Who determines what candidates will be > endorsed by a paper? The reporters? Not hardly. Even the editor? > Not usually. Who? The publisher and/or owner! Now, what sorts of > people are they? Well, they often tend to be rather well off financially. > And what party do "The Rich" traditionally belong to? Republican, yes? > So what candidates are the publisher/owners going to have their papers > endorse? Do they care much about how their staff feels? Not often. > The fact is that an overwhelming percentage of the nation's reporters, > those who actually cover the news, are liberals and/or Democrats. ... > Lauri This is not necessarily a good model for Republicans and/or conservatives. For example, Harvard is very wealthy and very liberal, while Mississippi is very poor and very conservative. Certainly the liberal New York Times overfloweth with cash. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/04/85)
> From Jim Matthews: > You have presented your endorsements=bias argument before, but it > doesn't wash. Any survey of the country's vast number of newspapers will > find that they generally reflect the citizens they serve -- i.e. they vote > Republican in presidential elections. Look at the Eastern news elite, > however, and you find un-alloyed leftism that doesn't just give endorsements, > but even twists news. In the seventies, when 3 million died at the hand > of socialists in Cambodia, the New York Times ran ten times as many articles > about the human's rights situation in Chile. And while the election > endorsement of some small-town paper doesn't reach anyone but it's readers, > the news stories from the Times, the Post, and the Globe are relayed from > coast to coast. And let's not forget our friends at the networks -- Dan > Rather, whose opposition to the administration is a matter of public record, > and the rest. The surveys done after the 1972 election found that over > 80% of this group were for McGovern, while only this misguided(sic) state would > vote for him. 1)Do newspaper endorsements *reflect* the citizens they serve or *shape the opinions* of the citizens they serve? In fact surveys for several decades have found that newspapers endorse Republicans 70% of the time, even at periods when the majority of voters were Democrats and voted for Democrats. 2)In fact the election endorsements of small-town newspapers *are* what people read. The *circulation* of the papers endorsing Reagan in the last election represented the majority of actual circulation. Actually the New York Times and Washington Post do not have the widest circulation of major newspapers. Also, while the New York Times and Post/LA Times news services are distributed to many local papers around the country, that doesn't mean that they get carried. Editors choose to carry those items they are likely to agree with or think have some local angle. I have seen William Buckley's column in every local paper I have read. I have never seen the same circulation for any liberal columnist. 3)National level reporters are generally liberal - that is undoubtedly true. However what gets covered, which stories get published and how those stories are presented is determined by editors and publishers. These generally represent conservative interests. Why do you think Jesse Helms wants to be "Dan Rather's boss"? Because he realizes that it is who *owns* the media that is the most important and most controlling. 4)Your remarks about the New York Times coverage of Chile vs Cambodia is interesting but I would like to see some documentation. I have seen plenty of reports in the Times about the political trials in Yugoslavia, the situation in Afghanistan,etc. These events are generally covered by the New York Times. But do you think a small-town newspaper, while it carries Reagan's inflammatory remarks about the "totalitarian government" in Nicaragua, ever carries similar reports about the former dictator of Guatemala? Or any reports on Chile? Or any international news of substance whatsoever that didn't come out of some American official's mouth? In my experience they do not cover these topics *at all*! "The Truth shall set you free...." tim sevener whuxl!orb
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/04/85)
> From Laurinda Rohn: > No, you haven't proved that there is a conservative bias in the press. > Think about it for a minute. Who determines what candidates will be > endorsed by a paper? The reporters? Not hardly. Even the editor? > Not usually. Who? The publisher and/or owner! Now, what sorts of > people are they? Well, they often tend to be rather well off financially. > And what party do "The Rich" traditionally belong to? Republican, yes? > So what candidates are the publisher/owners going to have their papers > endorse? Do they care much about how their staff feels? Not often. > The fact is that an overwhelming percentage of the nation's reporters, > those who actually cover the news, are liberals and/or Democrats. This is an argument *against* the conservative bias of the press?(!!!) Publishers determine not only political endorsements but the whole political tone of a paper. Endorsements are merely the most visible aspect of this control. But it can also be seen in the political columnists represented, and the general editorial policy. There have been MANY instances of reporter's stories killed or drastically changed because it does not suit the newspaper's publisher. There have also been many instances of reporters themselves being canned for not toeing the paper's political line. Does anybody remember the canning of Daniel Schorr? Even the former editor of the "liberal" New York Times , John Oakes, was eased out of his job for offending the business interests on the Times corporate board too often. (this is related in the "American Establishment" by Mark and Leonard Silk if anybody wants to look it up) Many of the reporters who covered Vietnam realized that something was drastically wrong with the American involvement there. But that didn't stop newspaper editors (again, even the "liberal" New York Times) from accepting and supporting the American involvement. Time Magazine was an especially bad offender in doctoring reporter's stories on what was actually happening in Vietnam. The majority of autoworkers are Democrats also. Does this mean that General Motors will support liberal policies? Your argument contradicts itself! tim sevener whuxl!orb
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (03/07/85)
> > No, you haven't proved that there is a conservative bias in the press. > > Think about it for a minute. Who determines what candidates will be > > endorsed by a paper? The reporters? Not hardly. Even the editor? > > Not usually. Who? The publisher and/or owner! Now, what sorts of > > people are they? Well, they often tend to be rather well off financially. > > And what party do "The Rich" traditionally belong to? Republican, yes? > > So what candidates are the publisher/owners going to have their papers > > endorse? Do they care much about how their staff feels? Not often. > > The fact is that an overwhelming percentage of the nation's reporters, > > those who actually cover the news, are liberals and/or Democrats. > ... > > Lauri > > This is not necessarily a good model for Republicans and/or conservatives. > For example, Harvard is very wealthy and very liberal, while Mississippi > is very poor and very conservative. Certainly the liberal New York Times > overfloweth with cash. > --- > Greg Kuperberg Please note the qualifiers in my statements. I did not say all wealthy people are Republicans, but that that is a tendency. My point was that just because newspapers endorse conservative candidates doesn't mean that the majority of the reporters and editors are conservatives or that there is a "conservative bias" in the way they report news. The publisher/ owner is the one who endorses, not the staff. Lauri
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (03/07/85)
> from tim sevener whuxl!orb > Publishers determine not only political endorsements but the whole > political tone of a paper. Endorsements are merely the most visible > aspect of this control. But it can also be seen in the political > columnists represented, and the general editorial policy. There have > been MANY instances of reporter's stories killed or drastically changed > because it does not suit the newspaper's publisher. There have also > been many instances of reporters themselves being canned for not > toeing the paper's political line. Does anybody remember the canning > of Daniel Schorr? Even the former editor of the "liberal" New York > Times , John Oakes, was eased out of his job for offending the business > interests on the Times corporate board too often. (this is related > in the "American Establishment" by Mark and Leonard Silk if anybody > wants to look it up) If the publishers really "control" as you seem to think they do, then why do they allow conflicting points of view to be printed? Why would they allow pieces about Reagan's most recent "misremembering" of the facts to appear? Why would an article presenting a favorably picture of the leftists in Central America get printed? Why does Afghanistan go largely unnoticed instead of being continually presented as evidence that the Soviets are out to conquer the world and we should arm to the teeth? Lauri