From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:48:48 GMT

Dave Sill writes
> EMIL CHUCK writes:
> > [ The media are biased against the Republican. ]
> > [ Gives a long list of the major news media saying unkind things
> > about the Republicans ] 
[ Beware of rough cutting but this is essentially the response which Dave Sill 
  gives to every single of these allegations ]
> [ ... ]
> It's true. 
> [ ... ]

Well, that may very well be.

But that is not the point. Media bias only in the rarest and crudest forms  
actually expresses itself in making definite statements which are verifiably  
untrue. Call me naive, but I believe that even most left-wing journalist are  
too honorable and too clever to do that. 

Bias is much rather expressed in what is talked about and in what is not talked  
about. Both the Republican party and the Democratic party are huge  
organizations and have long histories. Most journalists who comment on the  
conventions have been reporting on them full-time for years or even decades.  
Hence each one of them would have no problems whatsoever to talk for hours and  
hours and hours and only make positive or only make negative absolutely true  
comments about either of the parties. This is purely a matter of choice for  
them. But as most journalists are to the left of center and on an average  
presidential election some 80% of them vote Democratic, it is not surprising  
that most of them choose to make almost only true negative comments about the  
Republicans and almost only true positive comments about the Democrats.

To illustrate, consider what would happen if almost all journalists were  
devoted Republicans.

During the Democratic Convention, they could have gone on and on about how  
split the Democratic Party is over abortion, how Clinton did not get drafted,  
the accusations of marital infidelity about Clinton, how Gore was the biggest  
spender in the Senate, quote some of the more extreme passages from "Earth in  
the Balance", show the protests against Gore because of his wifes comments  
about record labeling, point out that Gore has lived almost his entire live in  
Washinton as the son of a Washington insider, how Clinton promises to cooperate  
with the Democratic congress. raise taxes, how Mondale promised that Clinton  
really is a "liberal" at heart aso.

During the Republican Convention, they could have gone on and on about how Bush  
was a navy pilot and shot down, won the war against Iraq, was the Vice  
President who helped crush the Democrats in 80 with 44 states won, in 84 with  
49 states won and in 88 as president with 40 states, how Bush has shot up in  
the polls by about 10 points in a week, how enthusiastic the Republicans in  
attendance seem, how many women and minorities there were at the convention,  
how unified the party was going to be after Buchanan endorsed Bush, how much  
the problems with Reagan seem to have been overcome now that Reagan endorses  
Bush, how much the Republican party is for complete school choice and the  
Democrats are against it, how Quayle attacked the lawyers at the ABA aso.

All of the above is perfectly true. You may not consider it the _whole_ truth.  
Neither may I. Anyway the commentators at all the large networks could have  
truthfully said the above and only the above. Would you consider that unbiased  
? They did the same in reverse. Does a bias in favour of your political views  
automatically become a non-bias ?

	Carl Edman