From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Media Bias? YOU Decide. Resumes Tell All
Summary: Are the media biased?
Keywords: media bias networks
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:14:49 GMT
Expires: 30 Nov 92 15:15:38 EDT
 <1992Nov3.172127.169@hsh.com> <1992Nov4.190437.2962@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Reply-To: paul@hsh.com
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov4.190437.2962@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:

> 	Eh?  Are you saying that anyone employed in the media should have no
> political opinions?  Or that they should only have opinions that correspond
> with yours?  

No, I'm responding to the myth that "most journalists are right-wingers."  
Kindly don't impute meanings that are not there.  What I am saying is that,
given the background of many of America's most influential journalists and
news decision makers, this myth doesn't stand up. 

> IN any case, simply pointing out that this or that newsperson
> has "liberal" (or at least non-rightist) opinions in no way constitutes
> evidence that said person routinely biases his or her work in that direction.
> Journalists (like most other professionals) have standards to which they
> adhere.  One of them involves obtaining independent confirmation of reports.

In which case, they fail miserably.  The amount of investigative time 
devoted to uncovering any of several of Clinton's ...ummm, assertions, 
shall we say, pales in comparison to the thousands of man-hours devoted to 
Republican negativity.  Examples?  Clinton's main claim that this is "the 
worst recession in 50 years" is a flat-out falsehood.  Was this debunked by 
the network "campaign truth squads"?  No.  Not once.  Clinton's claim that 
"Arkansas has the second-lowest tax rate" isn't so; was it debunked?  
Again, no.

> 	I am no more likely to accept that a moderate or liberal journalist
> automatically biases his or her work than I am to accept that a conservative
> journalist does so, without some actual evidence to support this claim.

Very well.  Evidence abounds; whether you're willing to accept is up to
you.  Here's one example for you: 

When Bush and Clinton trotted out their economic proposals, the networks
devoted much attention to the findings of the Economic Policy Institute
(which the networks invariably describe as a "non-partisan think tank"). 
The EPI blasted Bush's economic plan as costing $8 billion and zillions of
jobs; they did NOT report (nor did the networks ask about) on the effects
of that $8 billion invested in the economy. 

More to the point, the EPI did NOT scrutinize Clinton's plan at all; the
press somehow (?) never picked up on this.  MOST to the point, the networks
never mention that the EPI was founded by (and is today run by) essentially
the leadership of AFSCME -- the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees -- which not only endorsed Clinton, but assigned
thousands of members to Clinton's campaign.

By comparison, the Heritage Foundation's analysis of Clinton's economic 
plan was instanly dismissed by the media.  Did you read about it?  Bet not.
If you were lucky enough to find it in the back pages, you no doubt saw the
HF described as a "right-wing organization".  Is this balanced?

>>And don't forget Michael Gartner, president of NBC News: "There is no 
>>reason for anyone outside of the police or military to own a gun."
>>
> Would you assume that he was more objective if he belonged to the NRA?

Ignore the point, if you will, that the president of NBC News has called 
for the repeal of the Second Amendment.  Can you reasonably expect to find 
balanced coverage of the gun-control issue on NBC?  Hey, if you want to 
refute me, please post a pro-gun statement made by any president of any 
news network in the past, say, fifteen years.

>>Then there's Ted Turner; 'Captain Planet' was his brainchild, and he
>>married "Hanoi" Jane Fonda.  Nuff said there. 
>>
> 	I was unaware that "Captain Planet" was a news show.

And ignore this point, too, that the woman Turner married is the polar
opposite of a right-winger.  Again, feel free to refute this point by, for 
example, telling us how many network owners are married to *prominent*
Republicans.

>>How about Jane Pauley?  Married to some comic-strip writer named Trudeau.  
>>Writes some pap called "Doonesbury."
>>
> 	Happens to be a very popular strip.  I'm sure you dislike it's
> politics, but then no one is forcingg you to read it, are they?

Batting a thousand today.  You don't see any conflict between an obviously 
ideological anchor interpreting the news under the guise of 'objectivity'?

I am not under the illusion that favoring an ideology means that 
one can't be objective, perhaps even most of the time.  But to argue that a 
reporter can NEVER be biased, as you seem to...

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by the tenor of your arguments, it
seems to me that you're more interested in tossing out straw men than in
debating the topic on its merits. 

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1611 alt.politics.elections:23507 alt.politics.bush:13774 alt.politics.clinton:16880 alt.politics.perot:5441 misc.headlines:7004 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6629