From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:54:21 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <Bu9LIw.Koq@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
]  I agree.  I don't understand why some people seem to have a problem
]  with journalists, editors, and newspapers and TV stations having
]  opinions which are expressed in their reporting.   The idea of 
]  "objective journalism" is naive nonsense anyway and we should all
]  grow up and stop demanding or expecting it.

There are two problems with this viewpoint:

  (1) The media themselves pretend to be objective, and in fact publicly
      pat themselves on back for it all the time.

  (2) There is a serious lack of balance. All 3 of the major TV networks
      exhibit the SAME bias, which they loudly proclaim does not exist.
      I would be much happier if at least one of the networks had a
      conservative bias or a libertarian bias or anything other than
      the standard left-liberal, statist, anti-traditional bias that
      they have today. Anyone who watches all three networks should
      notice that they show a remarkably consistent view of everything,
      even though that view is not universal in the printed press.

]  I would also raise this issue (although I want to make it very clear
]  that I don't think it applies to the current race as I think Clinton
]  is as abad as Bush):  What if one candidate *really is* much worse than
]  the other in terms of his record, character, or whatever?  Should 
]  journalists still feel compelled to provide "balance"?   "Objective"
]  reporting of such a race would result in far more negative references
]  to the bad guy.  Anything wrong with that?

It is the press that has confused "balance" with "objectivity". Balance is
nonsense.... it means that on any issue we believe that there are
two equally valid sides, so we will show both of them. This leads
to some really amusing travesties on the news. Certainly on some issues
there are valid grounds for dispute even among the most knowledgable,
and balance is one way to attempt to achieve some degree of objectivity.
On others, balance is out of place. If X has a mistress and Y
doesn't (to use a trivial example), no amount of "balance" is going to
change that. If the media search to find something equally damning
(or praiseworthy - take your own shot at judgement) about the other candidate,
they are IMHO not doing their job. This other issue should be reported on
its own merits, not as "balance" to some unrelated issue.

Another problem with "balance" is that editorial judgement is still
required to pick the two "sides" of the issue. I have seen many cases
where the press has shown a spokesman for each side of a liberal/conservative
debate, and where they have put on the most credible and least extreme
liberal spokesman and the least credible and most extreme conservative
spokesman. They can then claim balance but in fact they have stacked
the deck.

I would like to see DIVERSITY in the mass media. As it is, if I want
conservative news I have to go to Rush Limbaugh (who is by his own words
an entertainer, not a journalist) or the Wall Street journal editorial
page, or National Review. None of these are mass media. If I want to
see liberal news, all I have to do is watch any major TV network news
or list to network radio. If I want to see an anti-war-on-drugs viewpoint,
I can occasionally find it in National Review or the Wall Street journal,
but never on national TV.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- - "May you have the wealth of a Republican, and the sexual prowess - -
- -  of a Democrat." - Johnny Carson's joke writers
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh