stu3@mhuxh.UUCP (Mark Modig) (12/03/84)
">" = From Tim Sevener (whuxl!orb) >... The media are, in fact , overwhelmingly >conservative and status-quo oriented. This means that rather than actively >distorting facts, such newspapers either fail to present certain facts or >else bury them back in those parts of the paper where they are never read. >The media DO have a major influence in terms of how they phrase their headlines >and so forth. Many people will just skim an article and be heavily influenced >by headlines which may actively contradict information given on page 25 where >the end of the front-page article is given. I disagree. I am getting pretty tired of hearing about all these charges flying back and forth about "liberal" and "conservative" biases. Sure there are cases of perceived bias; I have even cited a few myself, and here comes another one... one of the best newspapers I have seen at burying the facts in the back pages is the same New York Times, that famous bastion of media conservatism. Example: An article saying that Geraldine Ferraro and her husband, John Zaccaro, had paid some back taxes on their finances and that they were going to pay more, an article I thought should have been on page 1, or at least two or three, was buried back well into the teens of the first page of that day's New York Times. I judge a newspaper's "bias" by considering both articles printed AND the opinions expressed in the editorial pages. By this criterion, I hardly think you have a basis for alleging a conservative bias. Besides, I seem to recall an article a while back that said that an overwhelming number of reporters that cover politics vote Democratic. How, then, are we to reconcile the two? In fact, about the only constant I can find is that the editorial sections contain criticisms of current local, state, and Federal government policy and all sorts of real helpful suggestions for correcting these perceived defaults, along with praise for events or happenings they approve of, and suggestions for making these things even better. Yes, individual papers have differences (I prefer to think of them as personalities, but I tend to anthropomorphise (or -ize) too much anyway), but on the whole, it is very difficult to make general sweeping statements about the media as a whole, except that they love to criticize and analyze, which is, in part, what they are supposed to do. >When is the last time you saw ANY newspaper present information about the >distribution of wealth in this country? Occasionally they present information >about the distribution of income, never about the distribution of wealth. >This bias is generally hidden--who can realize the *absence* of pertinent >facts? But the conservative bias of the media becomes apparent when push comes >to shove at election time and newspapers reveal their true colors. >The "liberal media" is a myth. Yes, the liberal media is a myth, but so is the conservative media. A few more points: 1) What is wealth? How is it measured? Where do you get reliable data from. I have seen articles in the L.A. Times on and off that purport to measure wealth in some manner. Trouble is, I have never necessarily seen a definition that I am completely happy with. But if you really want to know, go to a library and poke around, or ask the reference librarian for help. I'm not tied to just seeing what the papers publish or the nightly news says. 2) Although endorsing a presidential candidate can be an indicator as to a paper's political outlook, one decision is hardly enough data to raise the red flag and point the all-impaling finger of Truth at the offender. Obviously a lot of Democrats cast votes for Reagan. Reagan even won in states where there is a Liberal party. Does that mean the media is biased for endorsing Reagan? I don't think so. I think people voted as much against a candidate as for one in this election, and that goes for both candidates. Perhaps the papers felt this way, too. It also seems fairly clear that people voted for Reagan the person (and showman), rather than Reagan the politician. Papers that I saw pointed this out, too. In any case, I don't think one decision should count as much as the opinions expressed year-in and year-out on the paper's editorial pages. 3) Running a newspaper can be a logistical nightmare. There is only so much space on the front page (Stop the presses! Switch to 1/2 pt. type.. we've got another story for the front page), and decisions have to be made as to what stays and what is put elsewhere. The decisions that are made are not always one we would agree with; the example I cited above is a case in point. The case can be similar for a news broadcast. 4) Running a paper or TV network has other problems. You have got to make your product attractive to people in some sense, and that includes choices as to what stories to cover and what stories not to cover. It's hard to say whether the people control the media by watching and buying what they like to hear and see (including such things as comics, sports coverage, business, local news, weather, etc), or whether the media control the people by arbitrarily deciding what they will see. I think that papers generally reflect the attitudes of their readers; papers in a conservative part of the country will probably be more conservative in philosophy then those in an area that is generally adjudged more liberal. And, as I said before, papers in general do seem to like to go after the government, and it doesn't seem to change too much no matter who is in office and what the philosophies of that media entity are. The liberal media myth is dead! The conservative media myth is dead! Long live the bewildered media! Mark Modig ihnp4!attunix!mom ^^^^^^^----new address
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (12/04/84)
A succinct comment on this is from I.F. Stone (I think) who said, "The media is like a good dog: obedient, but it snaps at its master every now and then." Mike Kelly
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (12/05/84)
References: Sender: Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Chicago Keywords: Jim Matthews' recent article is rather well written and deserves a reply. He writes: >But these [hinterland] papers don't hold a candle to the influence >of the eastern print and video media elite -- a group that is overwhelmingly >liberal. Studies on the subject have shown them voting 90% for McGovern, when >less than half that percentage of the voting citizenry did, and a majority >go so far as to describe themselves as liberals. Do you have any statistics on the *owners* of newspapers and television stations and networks? The owners do, after all, have more than a little say about who their editors are and what gets printed or broadcast. The Chicago Sun-Times, formerly a Democratic bastion, is now editorially right-wing; not because all the editors were converted by reading a column by William F. Buckley, but because Rupert Murdoch bought the paper. Who owns the American media? Jane Fonda? Ron Dellums? Or are the owners more likely to be tycoons like Murdoch and Walter Annenberg? Granted that the Sun-Times was a liberal paper when the Field family owned it; I am merely saying that the evidence that journalists tend to hold liberal political beliefs does not, by itself, allow one to conclude that the media have a leftward slant. By the way, do you suppose that the liberal attitudes of journalists have anything to do with the fact that they are generally highly educated, intelligent, and well informed? Well, no, I suppose you don't. But it was not necessary to be a rabid liberal to support McGovern in 1972; it was sufficient to have a knowledge of Nixon's character and past deeds. >So when have you seen a major paper or network endorse Star-Wars? >School-Prayer? Balanced-Budget Amendment? Aid to the Contras? When have you seen ANY locally based newspaper or television station in the US endorse socialism in any shape or form? Or if you suppose that they are merely afraid of using the word "s-c--l-sm", where are the newspapers that advocate s-c--l-st-c policies such as massive wealth redistribution (I'm not talking about the piddling redistribution effected by the federal income tax), democratic control of investment, or a centrally planned economy (many s-c--l-sts do not support this last idea, however)? If you succeed in finding one, I will recall the occasion on which Dr. Johnson remarked that there was not a tree in all the Scottish Highlands; an indignant Scot replied that there was too a tree, not ten miles from where he lived. Doesn't the scarcity of s-c--l-st newspapers suggest that there is something just a LITTLE BIT wrong with the idea that the media have a leftward tilt? >...ten times as many NYT articles on human rights in Chile than on Cambodia, >where the problem is many times worse. Yes, and a frequent lament of conservatives is that liberals constantly harp on the evils the US has committed or condoned in such places as El Salvador and neglect to mention the atrocities committed by the Soviets in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The right generally attributes this to a liberal guilt complex and a general attitude that right-wing regimes are worse than those on the left. Can you think of another possible explanation? Give up? How about this: Americans are citizens of the US, not of the Soviet Union. What are we going to do about the atrocities the Soviets commit? Nuke them? The influence of American criticism on Soviet actions is about nil. On the other hand, since the US is a democracy, our criticisms of US policy can have an effect on the actions of the US government and hence indirectly affect countries where the US wields much influence, such as Chile, El Salvador, and South Africa. Consequently, Americans who are more interested in making the world a better place than in self-righteous chest-beating will spend more time criticizing US policy than the actions of those over whom we have minimal influence, such as Communist governments. > The American media is not socialist, but to call it conservative is to >locate the political center somewhere to the left of Walter Mondale. Which is exactly where it is, taking the world as a whole. Richard Carnes ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Golden Rule for the Reagan Eighties: Let's do it unto Them before They do it unto Us.