simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (07/02/84)
This is from the Wall Street Journal, 2 July 84, and reprinted
without permission:
"We've been reading much about Salvadoran Roberto D'Aubuisson
'who has been linked to (right-wing) assasination squads.' We propose
a similar style change: Konstantin Chernenko, who has been linked to
the shooting of the Pope."
Love it!
While we're on the subject of the news media's selective emphasis,
notice how Louis Farrakhan's comments were, for the most part, referred
to as 'controversial statements' in the press, but James Watt's gaffe
was quoted exactly in the news every night from the time it was made
until he resigned?
Hmmmm...
(The above does not necessarily imply my support for either
D'Aubuisson or Watt, but refers to reporting on them.)
--
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simardkel@ea.UUCP (07/16/84)
#R:loral:-21600:ea:10100060:000:515 ea!kel Jul 16 12:35:00 1984 The profession of journalism has a long standing, and, as far as I know, correct, reputation as a haven for liberals and other malcontents. This may have something to do with the fact that there is little money to be made in the field, except as an owner of a publishing or broadcast facility. No one can write anything without interjecting his own opinions and attitudes into the work. If you want journalism to be truly objective, find a way to get people writing and publishing for free. Good luck. Ken
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (07/20/84)
Ray Simard seems to think that there is an anti-conservative bias in the press. He seems to think that they criticze D'Aubuisson harsher than Chernenko. Ray, iHave you EVER read anything positive about the Soviet way of life in the mainstream american press. As far as central america goes: The Boston Globe always refers to the LEFTIST government of Nicaragua, but only to the "Salvadorean Government". For that matter, they never refer to the Reagan Administration oas the "Right Wing Reagan Administration".
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (07/23/84)
Alexander Cockburn, formerly of the Village Voice and now of The Nation, has said, "Newspapers at their best are bundles of opinion and propaganda and clearly labelled as such." The problem is that the U.S. press pretends to objectivity. In Europe, you buy Socialist newspapers or Communist newspapers or conservative newspapers -- but you know what you're buying. In the U.S., people take Time and Newsweek as the pillars of truth. As to the part about "liberalism" of the press, perhaps journalists as a group are more likely to label themselves "liberal" than the population at large, but owners of the press certainly aren't liberal. They're corporations. There is also a difference between the label "liberal" and a person's set of beliefs. In the U.S., liberal is a dirty word, so most people don't use it as a description for their politics. But if you ask specific questions -- "Do you support cuts in social security? Do you favor the right to choose an abortion? Do you support a nuclear freeze?" -- you get what would be called liberal responses (yes, by a majority, in the case of the questions mentioned here, for example.) Mike Kelly
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/24/84)
While it may be true that reporters tend to be moderately liberal, it is also true that what actually gets published is conservative. Who ultimately decides what will get published in a given newspaper or magazine? The publisher--and publishers, being wealthy, also tend to be conservative. In fact 70% of the newspapers in this country consistently endorse Republicans year after year-is this proof of a "liberal" bias? An excellent book on the media is David Halberstam's "The Powers That Be". He points out that even when the publisher of the Los Angeles Times sought to make it more moderate (before he became publisher the LA Times didn't even publish anything said or done by Democrats--that's how biased it was!)--he was severely constrained by his own wealthy friends and family who were very conservative--some of them had even joined the John Birch Society. So whether he necessarily liked it or not, the LA Times endorsed Nixon in 1968 and 1972. The newspapers with the largest national circulation in this country are 1)the Wall Street Journal 2)NY Daily News 3)USA Today. Are these "liberal" papers? The Wall Street Journal and USA Today definitely are not. Newspapers don't make their money on subscribers- they make their money on advertising. It is the fight for advertising dollars that puts great pressure on newspapers to be conservative. If Otis Chandler of the LA Times had not endorsed Nixon then he faced a probable stockholders revolt and also the probable loss of large amounts of advertising dollars. But there is a further important bias inherent in the media--that is the power of high officials to create and control the news. Reporters get stories by their access to high sources--thus they come to accept the preconceptions and be shaped by those sources in order to get their stories. If a reporter alienates high officials she may find herself being the last one to get major stories- enough of that and her career will go down the tubes. Thus, as Halberstam points out in "The Powers That Be", all the reports in the field from Vietnam that the government was losing the War, that the government was disliked, and Americans disliked were overwhelmed by reports from Washington high sources (e.g. President Johnson himself) that THEY had information and our side was winning. For a long time this was believed by editors and publishers because, after all, who has better information than the President? Of course it wasn't true, anymore than Reagan's repeated accusations of Soviet cheating on nuclear arms agreements is true. But who could know better than the President? Tim Sevener
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (07/26/84)
[Do not write in this space] >Ray, >Have you EVER read anything positive about the Soviet way of life in the >mainstream american press. Not too much, but I'm sure that when they find something, they'll report it :-). You didn't mention any particular such aspects of Soviet life in your posting. Do you know of any (I am presuming these are elements that are in some way superior to those here)? >As far as central america goes: The Boston Globe always refers to the >LEFTIST government of Nicaragua, but only to the "Salvadorean Government". And apprpriately enough. The Sandinistas have not gone to any pains to hide their Marxist leanings. This is not necessarily an accusation, but it is accurate. By comparison, El Salvador is quite centrist, especially since the election of Duarte (in fact, maybe a bit left of center). Compare to my first reference: "...D'Aubuisson, who has been linked..." incessantly reminding news readers and watchers of accusations (originating with his political opposition) that have not been proven in any court of law; repeating them until the casual reader/watcher begins to mentally drop the "linked" and makes the association permanent. >For that matter, they never refer to the Reagan Administration oas the "Right >Wing Reagan Administration". Because it isn't. The Reagan administration is conservative, but not radical to be "right wing", except to the dizzy Democrats who persist in idolizing Big-Mr.-Fix-Everything-Government, forced redistribution of wealth, and foreign policy based on appeasement. -- Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard
simard@loral.UUCP (07/26/84)
[Do not write in this space]
Actually you are quite correct; the balance of position in the print
medium is relatively reasonable. I get the Wall Street Journal
and the San Diego Union, both quite conservative publications.
I was (and forgot to mention) primarily aiming at the broadcast,
and especially television, media. The picture is quite different here.
I have a study here which is an analysis of economic reporting
during the Reagan years, showing implied associations, disproportionate
coverage of items, and other biases. This agrees with my observations.
CBS seems to be the major culprit, though not the only one. Some of
my own observations:
Fall '81: nightly for about a week,
CBS interviews persons bemoaning high interest rates,
claiming all kinds of hardship. A month later, when rates took a
sharp drop; Dan Rather: "Interest rates fell today, another sign
of a weakening economy" What would you like, Dan?
During the beginnings of the '81 recession, night after night, stories
taped at steel and auto plants, the worst hit by the recession. Almost
no coverage of expansion in non-"smokestack" sectors, even though they
are increasing employment.
Summer '83: When unemployment took a tremendous drop (10.5 percent to
9.5 percent) CBS, instead of reporting the event (people going BACK
to work) reported the non-event (two pockets of the country where the
increase in employment was not being felt). If they want to show
tear-jerking interviews with persons out of work at the beginning
of a downturn (which is correct and appropriate enough), why not
the equivalent; happy statements by persons back at work when it
turns up again? Seems the CBS folks don't want John Q. to realize
how good things are until forced to.
I could list others, but I am getting tired in the fingers.
Good Luck!
--
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simarddubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/26/84)
> [Ken] > If you want journalism to be truly objective, find a way to get > people writing and publishing for free. Good luck. Except that those who will write/publish for free will probably do so only because they are committed to a cause or ideology and wish to work for the promotion of that ideology even if they don't get paid for it. Hence, it still may not be objective. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/27/84)
As far as selective reporting goes, I think that what the media does
say--and how it says it--is only the tip of the part of it. Combine
that with what the media doesn't cover, the stories they choose not to
run, the books they choose not to review, even the letters they won't
print, and also the types of questions reporters ask when doing a story
or taking an opinion poll.
Television reporting is the most dangerous medium. Stories can be edited
to suit the message the media wants to convey and it come out looking very
convincing because, after all, you did see it with your own eyes right there
on your TV screen. We are used to beleiving we have seen everything when
we have seen it with our own eyes.
But who needs a television? I've gotten along fine for nine years without
one. I think the tube is a big waste of time (with rare exceptions that don't
make it worth owning one). The most enjoyable part is watching the look
on the cable TV salesmen's face when, after they run through their sales
pitch, I break the news to them.
I'd rather be reading.
--
Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd
The true light that enlightens every one was coming
into the world... (John 1:9)david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/27/84)
Yeah, and I thought the media was pretty tough on Carter, too. I think
nothing aided Reagan MORE than CBS announcing the number of days the
hostages had been in Iran at the close of every nightly broadcast...
It seems to me the broadcast media are not anti-Reagan or leftist, but
rather that they play up negative occurences (it's got to be NEWS,
right?) and thus tend to cut down WHOEVER is in office. It is probably
no coincidence that no incumbent President, Republican or Democrat, has
served two terms since Eisenhower.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidsimard@loral.UUCP (08/04/84)
[Do not write in this space]
One of the aspects of biased television reporting that bothers me
is the effect on the half-attentive listener. In so many homes,
the TV is running as "audible wallpaper" during the evening, and
the words of Dan Rather et. al. are half-consciously noted between
kids screaming and whatnot. These words escape the scrutiny of
conscious attention and simplistic, distorted ideas can lodge easily
in the mind without the person knowing it. Witness the number of people
to talk about budget cuts in programs that have increased - only the
amount of increase *initially proposed* was cut. Many of these people
who do not supplement their view of the world around them with reading
take their gut impressions to the voting booth with them, effectively
cancelling the informed votes of those who invest time in gaining awareness
of their world.
--
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard