From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:56:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: thomaso@centerline.com's message of 19 Nov 92 14:04:11 -0400

In article <1egkurINNsoa@armory.centerline.com> thomaso@centerline.com
(Thomas Andrews) writes:
>The fact that a magazine had openly stated it's bias is refreshing.
>After all, do we really think the National Review isn't biased?
>The New Republic has been pushing the members of the Democratic
>Leadership Council for a while now, and they endorsed Dukakis,
>so I was not surprised that they gave space to plently of Clinton
>supporters.  Still, the magazine did include alternate opinions,
>something which will be rarely found outside of the letters pages
>in The National Review or The Nation.

Not at all true about "National Review."  Of course, their bias is
announced and open (and I agree that this is "refreshing," as you put
it, whatever the publication in question).  However, there are a lot
of alternate opinions and rather spirited debate in the pages of
"National Review."  (I'd be extremely surprised to hear that this is
true of "The Nation," but my personal experience with that publication
is limited.)

A few from memory: William Bennett v. William F. Buckley, Jr. (and the
editorial staff, I believe) on the subject of the drug wars.  Joseph
Sobran v. Everybody on the subject of the Gulf War.  (Joseph Sobran is
my A-number-1 favorite political writer of modern times, and this
episode elevated him to heroic stature in my view.  NR's move to strip
him of his "Senior Editor" status over this was the journal's darkest
hour.)  Robert Dornan's ringing endorsement of Bush (against
practically the entire editorial staff of NR) in 1988.  (We haven't
heard much from Bob lately.)  The current round of recriminations over
the recent debacle.

A few years back, John P. Roche ("an old liberal Cold Warrior") had a
regular column next to and equal in space to Buckley's own.  He had to
leave for some cushy government job, but his regular column in the
early 80's is what made a young J.D. Baldwin realize that not *all*
liberals were total unilateral-disarmament-give-the-store-to-the-
commies-flag-burning-nuclear-freeze-peace-freaks.  (Just the Carter
State appointees and Andrew Young.)

And then, of course, we have the "neo-conservatives," (epitomized by
Normal Podhoretz) who are basically "liberals" in their outlook and
philosophy, but reason from this outlook to advocate "conservative"
policies.  They are and have always been well-represented in the pages
of NR.

Despite an avowed conservative outlook ("bias," if you like), NR is
fairly diverse in the viewpoints it represents (within the
conservative framework, of course--I don't see much of Mary McGrory's
stuff in there).  Please don't say that "alternate opinions" are
"rare" in its pages without having read it.  And if you've read it,
you certainly skipped some entertaining stuff.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24249 talk.politics.misc:61278 tx.politics:7626