matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (12/02/84)
> > > From me (tim sevener): > > > As to the ongoing controversy about the "liberal" media, > > > the NY Times reported that over 80% of the nation's newspapers endorsed > > > Reagan, and that those endorsing Reagan represented 70% of the circulation > > > of all newspapers making endorsements. > > > Where is the "liberal" media folks? > > > These figures are not unusual--in fact 70% of newspapers consistently endorse > > > Republicans and the total circulation of those newspapers is undoubtedly > > > close to the 70% in this latest election. (probably about 60%) > > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > > > from Greg Kuperberg: > > 3) If a newspaper or magazine endorses Republicans, this does not mean > > that it distorts the facts. > > It does not necessarily mean that such newspapers distort the facts anymore than > liberal papers do. What it does demonstrate is the error of the oft-repeated > assertions about the "liberal media". 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. > 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. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb Well, it is good to see a liberal admit that the media can distort facts, but it's no myth that this distortion is more or less one-way, favoring liberal causes. You cite one indicator -- endorsements. Who knows, maybe the unwashed masses of local papers *do* agree with the people that Reagan is a good President. But these 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. A similar majority supports the thesis that the government should actively redistribute wealth. So whatever the hometown editor thinks, he's likely to be drowned out by Dan Rather, who is quite open in his opinion (or, rather, his contempt for) the Reagan Administration. There's a great story about how the publisher of the Washington Post was asked to name on conservative reporter on her staff. She had to think about for a while, and finally offered "Lou Cannon?" Cannon, incidentally, is the man who said that the press was "too fair" with Reagan (didn't know that was possible, myself) and that conventions of ethical journalism were getting in the way of his "getting" the president. But the proof is in the pudding, right? So when have you seen a major paper or network endorse Star-Wars? Sch-----