From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:31:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1069@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> I find it astonishing that some of you still doubt that there is a
> liberal bias in the media.  Even members of the liberal media have
> noticed the bias towards Clinton; Gary Trudeau and the "New Republic"
> among others have commented on it.

 As yet you haven't presented a single shread of evidence to support
this claim. Let's see if you do from here on in..

> news and (less often by me) entertainment.  I'm not talking local,
> regional, or small circulation outlets, or scientific journals or the
> like, but the national mainstream media: the networks, "Wall Street
> Journal", "New York Times", "Washington Post", "Time", "NewsWeek", "US
> News & World Report", etc.  When I say there is a liberal bias in this
> media, I mean it is biased to the left of the center in the U.S., not
> that the media isn't biased to the right of "The Nation", etc., which
> it clearly is.

 Still no evidence...

> Moreover, I'm not complaining that liberal opinions are expressed.  I
> don't want to censor or silence anyone.  Although, it does bother me
> that this bias shows up in what is called news, my goal is only to
> make people aware of it.

Seems to me that we're still talking about this mythical liberal bias
as it pertains to yuor belief system - that is, "if it is left of
me then it is liberal bias"...

> People who claim there is no liberal bias keep trying to label the idea
> that there is a conspiracy theory in order to discredit the idea and
> those who believe it.  I don't believe there is any conspiricy and I

I wouldn't do that - I would simply point out that one sees a bias
where one disagrees - if you agree with something you've read/heard
you (not just you but all of us) tend to see it as fair and just
reporting - if you see/hear something you perceive to be liberal/conservative
then it is a media bias..

> don't know of any reason to think that there is.  As I have explained
> before, it is well known and perfectly natural that people attracted to
> certain professions have more in common than just their attraction.  It
> is well known and documented that the people in the media are mostly
> liberal [1] (I have never seen that disputed anywhere but on the NET). 

 This still is not the slightest evidence that there is a bias...

> Most observers don't dispute any of this.  What is disputed is whether
> or not this bias makes its way into the news.  I don't think most of the
> bias is intentional.  I think the press tries to write to the center of
> the country.  But I think they are human, and they make mistakes, and
> that when they do it is only natural (for them) that the error is more
> often to bias the news to the left than it is to the right.

Nice try but all you've really done here is attempt to explain of
this nythical bias which you are assuming exists without presenting proof.

> Some of the bias is intentional however, and some of the press has
> admitted it.  "Time" for example has admitted that they are advocates
> for gun control and for the environment (read for the agenda of
> environmental groups).

 Um - are you saying that there are not groups which strongly support
positions of say the NRA which publish/broadcast in this country. Remember
you are making a claim that the majority of the media are biased in
a liberal direction - not a specific magazine or paper or tv show - the
majority of all of them - I have read articles in magazines which are
clearly anti-gun control - does this particular somehow make the whole
biased towards the right? I don't think so...

> The best evidence of liberal bias (and in fact, error) in the media is
> the way the Reagan years have been and still are being reported.  It is
> absolutely cliche that during the Reagan years the poor got poorer and
> the rich got richer.  We've all heard it over and over.  It isn't true!
> In the "National Review", August 31, 1992, there is a section called,
> "The Real Reagan Record."[2]  Even I, who have been following this
> subject for years, was shocked by the level of outright deceit.  Check
> their figures out yourself; the figures they use are in the public
> record.  It is absolutely clear and indisputable: the poor, most
> unambiguously did not get poorer during the Reagan years.  They got
> richer, and if you follow individuals instead quintiles, people who
> were in the bottom 20% of income earners in 1979, increased their
> income by a much larger percentage by 1989 than people in the top 20%
> did over the same period. The Reagan years were in many ways a huge
> success, and it is an enormous crime that the record has been so
> distorted that we are running from his successful policies.

Oh this is priceless - you *claim* that the reporting was and still is
wrong based on an article from a biased source - incredible. The
stats are out there to support anything you or I might want to
support - I have heard more about the falsehood of poverty in this
country in the past year than I have reports about the horrors of the
Reagan years and yet you want me to believe that I am somehow exposed to
nothing but liberal-bias - prove it - don't just say "I like the
stats published in X and choose to believe them so if anyone questions
them or disagrees with them then they are biased" - that kind of
argument carries no weight what-so-ever...

> Another example: how many of you think we are still in a recession
> (nationally)?  People on the NET have said we are, and that it is the
> worst recession in 50 years.  Both are false.  There has been slow
> growth for the last five quarters, and therefore no recession
> (unemployment has been relatively high, but that is irrelevant to
> whether or not we are in recession).  And the recession we came out of
> is not even close to the worst in 50 years.  1982's was worse for
> example.

So - we are not in a recession? I see - well we have little or no
inflation right? So we must be doing very well right? This is
all a myth - the unemployment figures must be faked and we must
all be fools - come on...

> [1] "And That's the Way It Isn't: a reference guide to media bias", by L.
> B. Bozell III & B. H.  Baker, 1990.
> [2] You can get copies of this for $2 per copy by sending to:
> 			National Review
> 			Reagan Reprint
> 			PO Box 96639
> 			Washington DC  20090-6639

 I love it - cite biased source for talk on biased reporting....



			As I suspected, not the slightest hint of anything
even remotely resembling proof of a liberal media bias in this country. 
Just more "I don't agree with what was said on network X because I
believe what Rush says on his broadcast so X is clearly biased" - get
a grip - can't you simply see that it is natural for people to see any
report which doesn't take their political view to be biased in the other
direction even if it is purely neutral in tone?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh