From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:27:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.034622.4291@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>
>dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>
>>Note that the above comments apply to the partisan leanings of reporters.
>>It doesn't reflect their ideological leanings at all.  In fact, both the
>>polls and my own experience suggests that reporters would best be described
>>as libertarian -- they generally oppose higher taxes, government spending,
>>guaranteed employment, etc.  So the question becomes, why do libertarian
>>reporters consistently vote Democratic.  
>
>Are you being serious?  They consider themselves liberal, and vote
>Democratic, but are really closet libertarians?  To say that reporters
>in general *oppose* government intervention is puting your credibility
>on the line.  Not to mention the fact that it directly contradicts the
>polls you seem familiar with.  Here's just a sample from a previous
>posting from the LA Times:  (Which *included* editors)
>
>					Journalists	      Public
>					-----------	      ------
>Govmnt Regulation of business:  Favor	    49			22
>				Oppose      41			50
>
>Affirmative Action		Favor	    81			56
>				Oppose	    14			21
>
>Stricter handgun control 	Favor	    78			50
>				Oppose	    19			41 
>
	Ah, finally some actual data.  Now, for those of us (like me) who
have never seen this poll, a few questions:
	What's the error variance here?  Obviously, not every journalist nor
every member of the "public" was queastioned, so there is a sampling error
of some sort.  Polls by orgainzations such as Harris and Gallup routinely
report these confidence intervals these days.  This is especially relevant
for the "regulation" and "affirmative action" items where the "oppose" 
percentages are quite close.
	How was the "public" sample defined?  What attempts, if any, were
made to avoid biasing said sample on various demographic variables (e.g.
if retirees were over-represented, this would tend to skew the results; 
ditto for many other categories).
	How was the "journalists" sample defined?
	What were the questions, exactly?  "government regulation of big
business" is a fairly vague term, for example.  If you asked me 
if I favored this, I'd be forced to ask you what regulations you meant;
unless one plans to seriously propose that businesses should be exempt from
all laws, criminal or otherwise.
	Don't get me wrong.  I appreciate finally seeing something other
than opinions in this discussion.  But the data cited are ambiguous without
some indication as to their statistical significance.

[lots of flaming deleted]
>bias is very evident in this article--although to you, it is simply
>an intelligent opinion, it is *still* an opinion.  As long as the 
>possibility exists that others will disagree with your opinions, the
>task for reporters is obvious.  You have to acknowledge the fact that
>you have opinions and stop making the judgement calls like you
>described above.  To hold to the belief that *your* decisions with
>regard to the applicability of a label are the only reasonable ones is
>arrogance beyond acceptability.
>
	Ironically enough, this describes your own postings here just as
well, although I suspect you'd defend *them* as models of objectivity.
And so it goes.  I *do* appreciate the Times data, though; it's a first
step towards getting this discussion on more objective grounds.

>
>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh