X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:30:00 EDT
From:         the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Nattering Nabobs

Jason Z:
>>"Objective", on the other hand, implies that the media is reporting what
>>appears to be the actual condition of events, regardless of the personal
>>views of those doing the reporting.
>True enough, assuming that you include in the definition of "objective" the
>qualification that the material reported contains "just the facts" -- no
>superfluous opinion.  I got the impression that you agree with this.

Sort of - there is *some* room for analysis of facts in an objective manner.
If a media outlet plunged full-tilt into opinionating, *then* I'd agree it's
given up the pretense of being objective.  Of course, if it's made clear that
the articles in question are opinion articles, and you expect objective
reporting, you'll be sorely disappointed...

>For example, Bush was wrong for not sending help to Florida sooner.  Now, when
>he proposes rebuilding a military base to maintain the local economy (and a few
>other minor projects), he's "wrong" for capitalizing upon a disaster for
>political gain.  He's damned if he does something and damned if he doesn't.
>That type of coverage is neither objective nor balanced.

Hmmm.  Since the speed of response to areas devastated by the hurricane and
the promising to rebuild a military base are not integrally related, Bush is
not in a catch-22 situation here.  He could have, for example, responded
with greater quickness and still promised the rebuilding of the military base.
(WRT to criticism of Bush on the response speed, I had the impression that
most of the criticism was coming from local officials in Florida, not the
media - but hell, why not kill the messenger for the message...)

As for the proposal to rebuild the military base, I had heard interpretations
that it was a political gesture, and that may be so, though I think Clinton
would be accused of the same thing if he could promise the same thing.  Please
remember, I'm not saying the media is objective, just pointing out that it is
still partially keeping the pretense alive (and it doesn't always skew towards
the liberal side - witness the cheerleading of supposedly leftist major media
outlets during the gulf war, for instance), and that "balance" is not a
precondition of doing so.

>>The weird part is that it came from Newsweek, the nation's leading fluffy
>>conservative advocacy journal, as opposed to Time, the nation's leading fluffy
>>liberal advocacy journal.
>You and I must be reading different versions of Newsweek.

Nah, I was just being subjective (since I'm not a media, I tend to indulge now
and then).  Note that I'm being balanced, though.  I call them advocacy rags
since they do such a bad job at pretending to be impartial.

>Jason

Gary W. Olson               "That's tonight's 'Unsolved Mysteries.' Next
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU week we'll present wildly inconclusive evidence
62 days and counting down... on the Amelia Earhart disappearance, U.F.O.'s
                             and God. Be there!"-Evan Dorkin's "Milk & Cheese"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU