plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (10/01/84)
..
In view of the interest here about the press and it's biases
(or whether they exist) I draw your attention to a pertinent
Wall Street Journal editorial of Oct. 1, 1984, first paragraph
of which is quoted here:
"The ethicists of the press have been clucking
about two things these past two weeks, and
the comparison tells a lot about their standards,
moral and professional. Despite the release of
a 385-page independent counsel's report, they
have decided questions remain to be asked about
the financial affairs of Ed Meese and his wife.
But all questions about the finances of Geraldine
Ferraro and her husband have been answered, and
anyone insisting on asking more will get booed
by the defenders of the public's right to know."
At a conference some months ago in Washington attended by
Rupert Murdoch (News America) and Ben Bradlee (Executive
Editor of the Washington Post) the following question was
addressed: "Is there a liberal media elite?"
R. Murdoch stated plainly, that, yes, there is. B. Bradlee
squirmed and fidgeted, waffled and evaded, and would not be
pinned down to even *denying* that there is a liberal elite.
Others, like Hodding Carter III, perceive a bias, but not a
liberal one. To him it is actually a conservative bias, one
that is manifested by conformity, patriotism, fiscal responsibility,
and the like. One supposes that to be a `liberal' in H. Carter's
eyes one must be a flaming marxist.
Anyone witnessing the applause from the reporters at the end
of Rep. Ferraro's press-conference where she supposedly laid
bare her finances, and the resounding silence on the Meese
affair might well note a liberal bias. I also note an utter
lack of professionalism. Which is the worse charge, I don't
know.
Scott Plunkett,
..{ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkettorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/05/84)
> > Wall Street Journal editorial of Oct. 1, 1984, first paragraph > of which is quoted here: > > "The ethicists of the press have been clucking > about two things these past two weeks, and > the comparison tells a lot about their standards, > moral and professional. Despite the release of > a 385-page independent counsel's report, they > have decided questions remain to be asked about > the financial affairs of Ed Meese and his wife. > But all questions about the finances of Geraldine > Ferraro and her husband have been answered, and > anyone insisting on asking more will get booed > by the defenders of the public's right to know." > 1)Ferraro's finances have just been in the news again 2)Edwin Meese's finances have not been in the news since the release of the independent counsel's report > At a conference some months ago in Washington attended by > Rupert Murdoch (News America) and Ben Bradlee (Executive > Editor of the Washington Post) the following question was > addressed: "Is there a liberal media elite?" > > R. Murdoch stated plainly, that, yes, there is. B. Bradlee > squirmed and fidgeted, waffled and evaded, and would not be > pinned down to even *denying* that there is a liberal elite. > > Scott Plunkett, > ..{ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett Are the New York Times and the Washington Post, two of the most respected newspapers in the country, liberal? Yes, but then another member of journalism's elite, the Wall Street Journal, is just as unabashedly conservative. But how many people actually read these organs of journalism's elite? More people read the Wall Street Journal than the New York Times, in fact the top 3 national newspapers are: 1)USA Today liberal bastion???? 2)Wall Street Journal any comment necessary? 3)Daily News The highest circulation is something on the order of several million. How much influence then in terms of what people actually read do these prestigious liberal papers have? Most people read their local paper--not the New York Times or Washington Post. And of those papers 75% endorse Republicans--despite the fact Democrats outnumber Republicans by a substantial margin. I find the "liberal bias of the media" to be a very dubious proposition. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (10/08/84)
<The govn that governs best is the one that governs yeast.> In last year's Oct/Nov issue of 'Public Opinion' prof. Lichter of George Washington Univ. and Prof. Rothman of Smith College published the results of interviews with 240 people responsible for news content in various media outlets. They report that the % of them voting for the Demo. candidate from 1964 to 1976 never dropped below 80%. This includes the George McGovern candidacy. sdcrdcf!alan
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/16/84)
> In last year's Oct/Nov issue of 'Public Opinion' prof. Lichter of George > Washington Univ. and Prof. Rothman of Smith College published the results > of interviews with 240 people responsible for news content in various > media outlets. > > They report that the % of them voting for the Demo. candidate from 1964 to > 1976 never dropped below 80%. This includes the George McGovern candidacy. > > sdcrdcf!alan This suggests that most of them are pretty professional in doing their job according to their editor's/publisher's wishes. It's also interesting that such a high percentage of the most informed segment of the population should consistently vote Democrat. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (10/16/84)
Good points, Ray. I, too, noticed the same things about the liberal bias in the media's reporting of the economy. Did everyone notice that, during the recessional post-recovery, the media, in toto, referred to the economic situation as 'Reaganomics;' but when the recovery hit, the media, in toto, dropped the label like a hot potato? alan
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/16/84)
> What bothers me more is the liberalism of the electronic media. There > are really a very few nationwide sources of radio and television news > reporting, and the accent there is decidedly liberal. The reason that this > concerns me is that television news in particular tends to reach the sector > of the population least willing to supplant the news so obtained with deeper > knowledge derived from the written press. The persons who tune in the even- > ing news paying slight attention as if it were little more than audible > wallpaper develop little enough awareness of current events due to the > abbreviation of the stories to fit time requirements, but also are open to > the slant an intentionally or unintentionally subliminal messages in them. > Particularly, visual effects, juxtapositions and other implicit cues regis- > ter more when the observer is not fully conscious of the telecast, and the > more so when that is the chief or perhaps only news source. I am in total agreement that the shift from newspaper reading to TV as the major source of most people's news is a bad thing. I would argue that it is precisely this shift that accounts for Reagan's popularity despite abyssmal policies. His technique of getting his picture taken beside the Chesapeake Bay to show his Environmental concern despite the worst Environmental policies in a decade seems to be working, there and in other areas. If getting his picture taken can cure our countries problems then I wish he would go to the Treasury and get his picture taken by the National Debt! Maybe it will magically disappear! I do not think the electronic media are liberal--let's look at the Iranian hostage situation as the perfect example--every day for months they began their broadcasts with "the 100th day of the hostages". Since we have deployed Cruise missiles we are only ten minutes away from nuclear war--do we hear every broadcast begin "this is the 300th day our country is ten minutes away from nuclear war"? TV news reporting is not necessarily liberal OR conservative--it is shallow and sensationalist. I am very disappointed with the local New York TV stations--every broadcast leads off with some fire or accident. I would estimate such coverage is half of their broadcast time. How does that inform people on anything important? It is much easier for TV to focus on the sensational and visually dramatic than to analyze general issues. They could do actual research and provide some facts and figures- but that would take too much work and TV stations have far fewer reporters than newspapers. Hence it is always easier to just send a cameraman out to some accident to take some gruesome footage. > > Second observation: since it was a nightly event to see the steelworker > Joneses in Pittsburgh tearful and fretting when things were going sour, is > it not equally appropriate to interview the same or different families when > they return to work? > > Ray Simard this is a good example of what I am talking about. I don't think that focussing on particular cases informs us about the general issue of unemployment. Barry Bluestone is an economist who has done statistical studies of hardhit industrial areas. He found that most of those former steelworkers and other bluecollar workers laid off ARE going back to work--to jobs like McDonald's. The major increase in employment in this economic recovery has occurred in precisely such low-level service jobs--NOT in good jobs. (tho some autoworkers and others have been recalled-- I will not deny that fact) Unfortunately the number of Americans reading newspapers has been steadily declining for years. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb > Loral Instrumentation, San Diego > {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
roy@eisx.UUCP (Steve Rojak) (10/17/84)
You have to ask more than pure circulation. What groups are getting the message that each "side" is putting out and how loud are those groups? sr
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (10/17/84)
[] In article <290@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >I am in total agreement that the shift from newspaper reading to TV as the >major source of most people's news is a bad thing. I would argue that it is >precisely this shift that accounts for Reagan's popularity... No doubt Reagan has used television to cast himself in the most favor- able light - what politician hasn't, as far as possible for him/her? Nevertheless, among the persons I know who support Reagan (and there are many), it is precisely his policies that we find appealing. I'll refrain from further discussion here to keep the focus on the subject, and discuss Reagan's policies in other postings. >I do not think the electronic media are liberal--let's look at the Iranian >hostage situation as the perfect example--every day for months they began >their broadcasts with "the 100th day of the hostages". Since we have deployed >Cruise missiles we are only ten minutes away from nuclear war--do we hear >every broadcast begin "this is the 300th day our country is ten minutes >away from nuclear war"? I can't agree with these examples. The holding of the hostages in Iran was not a partisan issue, with conservatives opposed and liberals in favor. In the second case, such a statement is obviously pure opinion (one with which I don't agree BTW) and is of an entirely different order of magnitude that the slanted articles I referred to in my original posting. I was not pointing to the statement of opinion as fact - though it does happen - but rather how the network news tends to report real facts selectively, and with sequencing, juxtaposition and packaging that place a coloration on the story which is definitely liberal. I should mention that I am discussing primarily the networks' news. Local news services are much like local newspapers, reflecting the tastes of their owners and management. >TV news reporting is not necessarily liberal OR conservative--it is >shallow and sensationalist. I am very disappointed with the local >New York TV stations--every broadcast leads off with some fire or accident. >I would estimate such coverage is half of their broadcast time. >How does that inform people on anything important? It is much easier for TV >to focus on the sensational and visually dramatic than to analyze general >issues. They could do actual research and provide some facts and figures- >but that would take too much work and TV stations have far fewer reporters >than newspapers. Hence it is always easier to just send a cameraman out to >some accident to take some gruesome footage. Other than the first phrase of the first sentence, I agree. >> Second observation: since it was a nightly event to see the steelworker >> Joneses in Pittsburgh tearful and fretting when things were going sour, is >> it not equally appropriate to interview the same or different families when >> they return to work? >this is a good example of what I am talking about. >I don't think that focussing >on particular cases informs us about the general issue of unemployment. >Barry Bluestone is an economist who has done statistical studies of hardhit >industrial areas. He found that most of those former steelworkers and other >bluecollar workers laid off ARE going back to work--to jobs like McDonald's. >The major increase in employment in this economic recovery has occurred in >precisely such low-level service jobs--NOT in good jobs. (tho some autoworkers >and others have been recalled-- I will not deny that fact) >Unfortunately the number of Americans reading newspapers has been steadily >declining for years. >Tim Sevener >whuxl!orb Actually, a substantial number of autoworkers have been recalled - it is the low-key presentation of these stories that lead many to believe that the number is relatively small. One of the points of the above is that it may be true that steelworkers are often re-employed at lower levels. The cast made on the news is that this is a failing of the government (read: Reagan administration) and that some other kind of federal policy would change that. No mention is made of the fact that labor demand in heavy industry is declining with more effi- cient manufacturing methods, automation and robotics, and changing tastes of consumers in automobiles and other similar outputs. There simply will prob- ably never be the need for steelworkers that there once was, just as there is little demand for stagecoach drivers. Times change, and labor demands shift. Now the shift is toward technology and service, and away from the smokestack sector. To look at the network news, you'd think Reagan was responsible for it all. More points: Reagan cut school lunches (actually, cut the amount of INCREASE from earlier proposals). How was it reported? School lunchrooms, mostly in low-income areas, with lovable urchins devouring their meals. What about the other side: middle-to-upper income family children eating their subsidized lunches, or just as often, dumping large portions of them and buying Twinkies. That was as much a valid and real part of the discussion, but it was NOT part of the TV news. Against this background, one refreshing exception stands out: the PBS McNeil/Lehrer report (maybe it's MacNeil, I'm not sure...) which (usually) scrupulously maintains a policy of allowing persons from both sides of issues a forum, and questioning is a highly objective manner. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/17/84)
==============
Certainly, one can pick up a copy of a conservative paper such as the
Wall Street Journal or numerous local papers, or a liberal one such as the
NY Times or Washinton Post, and find shadings of bias in the reporting. The
fact is, there are thousands of publications, all different.
What bothers me more is the liberalism of the electronic media. There
are really a very few nationwide sources of radio and television news
reporting, and the accent there is decidedly liberal.
==============
Before starting to read the Usenet, I never would have BELIEVED that
anyone could say this about the US media. They have an incredibly
strong conservative bias, exceeded only by about half of the posters
to this net. I have often wondered how much of the "everybody's
out of step but our Johnny" attitude of Americans to the rest of the
world is due to this bias, which seems to feed on itself and produce
even more wonderfully conservative "thinkers".
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtmiller@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/21/84)
Concerning the liberal (TV) media bias, remember CBS' "Reagan Price Index"? On the day he took office, they went out and bought a variety of items in some grocery store. They then normalized the price to $10. At periodic intervals past that point (twice a month as I recall) CBS went and bought the exact same items. They then told us: "What cost 10 dollars when Reagan took office now costs" *ching* (sound of cash register) "10 dollars and 11 cents". So what happened once the president got his budget through Congress and infla- tion dropped from the Carter/Mondale double-digit days to the low value it's at now? Hello? CBS? Are you out there? I can't heeeeear you. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois P.S. Stick with CNN. There you get to hear both sides...
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (10/21/84)
In article <> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >1)Ferraro's finances have just been in the news again >2)Edwin Meese's finances have not been in the news since the > release of the independent counsel's report > >Are the New York Times and the Washington Post, two of the most respected >newspapers in the country, liberal? Yes, but then another member of >journalism's elite, the Wall Street Journal, is just as unabashedly >conservative. But how many people actually read these organs of >journalism's elite? More people read the Wall Street Journal than >the New York Times, in fact the top 3 national newspapers are: >1)USA Today > liberal bastion???? >2)Wall Street Journal > any comment necessary? >3)Daily News > > >The highest circulation is something on the order of several million. >How much influence then in terms of what people actually read do >these prestigious liberal papers have? Most people read their local >paper--not the New York Times or Washington Post. And of >those papers 75% endorse Republicans--despite the fact Democrats outnumber >Republicans by a substantial margin. >I find the "liberal bias of the media" to be a very dubious proposition. >Tim Sevener >whuxl!orb [] This reminds me very much of the four blind men who came across an elephant. Each, being unable to observe what it was they had encountered, formed comically erroneous conclusions based on the little information he could obtain from the small part of the elephant he was actually touching. Certainly, one can pick up a copy of a conservative paper such as the Wall Street Journal or numerous local papers, or a liberal one such as the NY Times or Washinton Post, and find shadings of bias in the reporting. The fact is, there are thousands of publications, all different. What bothers me more is the liberalism of the electronic media. There are really a very few nationwide sources of radio and television news reporting, and the accent there is decidedly liberal. The reason that this concerns me is that television news in particular tends to reach the sector of the population least willing to supplant the news so obtained with deeper knowledge derived from the written press. The persons who tune in the even- ing news paying slight attention as if it were little more than audible wallpaper develop little enough awareness of current events due to the abbreviation of the stories to fit time requirements, but also are open to the slant an intentionally or unintentionally subliminal messages in them. Particularly, visual effects, juxtapositions and other implicit cues regis- ter more when the observer is not fully conscious of the telecast, and the more so when that is the chief or perhaps only news source. For example, when unemployment took a very dramatic and encouraging decline in the summer of '83, falling a full percentage point, CBS duly and laconically noted the fact, then devoted the entire first 10 minutes of the evening news - one-third of the total - to a pair of stories about two areas where unemployment was still high. It was as if Mt. Saint Helens had erupted, and CBS spent a third of the newscast interviewing persons who lived near an extinct volcano, logging minutes of "nothing's changed here" stories. In other words, they didn't report the story; they reported every- thing that WASN'T the story. When conservative author George Gilder and a liberal from the Brookings Institution whose name I can't recall were interviewed by Diane Sawyer on the morning news, Gilder was repeatedly cut off and interrupted in mid- sentence, by both Sawyer and the other participant. He, on the other hand, was allowed to pause, drift and ramble unimpeded. Gilder was visibly frus- trated at the end of the brief segment. In the early months of the recession, reporters (yup, CBS again) filed stories night after night from inside steel mills, auto plants, and other heavy "smokestack" industries, where unemployment was especially severe. Interviews with families suddenly without income were taped with maximum emotional appeal (I am not questioning these). However, two observations: no mention was ever made of the shift from old, heavy industry to high-tech lighter manufacturing, and with the same story airing night after night, unbiased approaches would have been to report on various sectors, in various geographical areas, showing a spectrum of economic activity, rather than merely the worst case. Second observation: since it was a nightly event to see the steelworker Joneses in Pittsburgh tearful and fretting when things were going sour, is it not equally appropriate to interview the same or different families when they return to work? When I read that GM or someone, or perhaps a new indus- try is (re)hiring umpteen thousand workers, I fail to see the corresponding interview-in-the-home. Is CBS afraid that someone might find out that the current policies are working? All of the above are derived from my own personal observation. I have read studies that reveal far more of this same selective reporting and com- position of stories to support a particular viewpoint (so much for the "right-to-know"). CBS seems the winner of the most-biased slot by a fairly close decision. (Not-quite-a-postscript: Ever notice how (usually) a conservative spokesman or economist will be interviewed only side-by-side with someone else on the other side of the issue (fine, so far), but liberal types, particularly celebrities, are given a forum to themselves? (not so fine) ) -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
scw@cepu.UUCP (10/26/84)
In article <29200160@uiucdcs.UUCP> miller@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: >Concerning the liberal (TV) media bias, remember CBS' "Reagan Price Index"? >On the day he took office, they went out and bought a variety of items in some >grocery store. [...] Carter/Mondale double-digit days to the low value it's at >now? >Hello? CBS? Are you out there? I can't heeeeear you. > [siganture] >P.S. Stick with CNN. There you get to hear both sides... In general I have noticed that CBS (in particular) is not pro-{liberal,conservative} as much as it is anti-whoever-is-in-the-white-house I seem to remember some real zinggers that they shot/dropped at/on Carter/Mondale. All in all they seem to have been (over time) fairly even handed. P.S. I always disbelieve 80% of what they tell me on TV, just for practice. Sometimes it's very easy, sometimes it's very hard, always it's interesting (Now why did they say that, at this time?). -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcrdcf}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (10/27/84)
With regard to the bias of reporters and declining newspaper readership:
I happend to be an eyewitness to an event that was later published in
a news paper. By eye witness I do not mean that I looked from the
sidelines but that I was right in the middle of it.
When I found out that the event was reported in the newpaper I was
greatly interested in finding the outcome. By the time I had
finished reading the article I was trying to convince myself that it
was some other incident that had been reported, not the one I was
present at.
There was so much bias that I was unable to identify it as the incident
that I had been present at. Now I have only this incident with which to
verify the accuracy of the news media but they failed totally. Why
should I trust anything I read or see on television? Before this I had
convinced myself that I could "filter out" the bias and get to the
facts but in this case the story was still way off even allowing for bias.
I have had other people report similar occurences to me. In particular,
those with direct access to the wire services report that what appears
in the papers bears little relationship to what came over the wire.
Has any one else out there been a witness to an event that you were
later able to read about in the newspapers (or TV). I would of course
expect it to be an event about which you were unbiased (I know I was, I
didn't approve of either side). So if you were the one arrested then
don't bore us with protestations of innocence.
In summation I am introducing two topics for discussion:
1 - Personal experiences with news reporting
2 - Can I believe what is reported?
Jerry Aguirre
{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerrymark@uf-csv.UUCP (mark fishman [fac]) (10/29/84)
Jerry Aguirre reports that an event to which he was a party was later reprorted (inaccurately) by one or another instrument of the press. He wonders, therefore, whether he can believe *anything* he reads or sees on television. I have seen, on the net, ONE article making an absurdly general inference from a single data point. Can I therefore conclude that ALL articles on the net contain the implicit premise that it is legitimate to generalize to millions of cases from a single data point? I certainly will, if I employ Jerry's reasoning, and select his article as that anomalous data point. Jerry: If you believe the press sustains a malign, "liberal" bias, what is your alternative? *Compel* the press to present what (to your mind) are more legitimate views, perhaps by imposing government regulation? I hear this works real well in Pravda. .
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (11/01/84)
Kolodney's law:
The only news articles that are reported incorrectly are the
one's you have firsthand knowledge of.
It works for me every time. Even the New York TImes.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mc