From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:45:11 GMT

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.

	Sure. Then, two weeks later, the word was that Bush was getting
more TV time (in minutes) and more positive TV time then Clinton. The
"Liberal Media" had not problem putting Clintons Draft record on the fron
page for 2 weeks, at a time when Richard Secord was giving interviews
on how Bush has been lying about his involvement in Iran Contra (Secords
words, not mine).

	The Media is biased towards sensationalism and bleeding heart
stories, because thes stories sell. Thats why the networks run shows
like "Cops", where our brave law and order government saves the citizen
from evil, dope smoking criminal types.

	The media is not a true reflection of reality, and anyone who wants
to can find ways to observe some level of bias in some direction. It's
easiest for fringe groups, of course, which is why Rush Limbaugh and the
far left are both complaining about it all the time. (If you really believe
that Rush Limbaugh is mainstream, then I can't help you).

	So - you made your point, the media is biased. The only motivation
that I can find for media bias, however, is that Bias sells, so by the
laws of free enterprise, I conclude that the most popular media is the
viewpoint most desired by the public. If the most popular viewpoint is
also the most biased (witness the sucess of the Washing Post vs. the 
Washington Times, or the NYTimes vs. everybodey else) then I would also
conclude that that viewpoint is the mainstream one.

	Feel free to lament that lack of accurate reporting, I will note
that the NYTimes has home delivery just about anywhere in the US. You
can get it delivered and Rush will tell you where the good parts are. I
personally don't think that the general public wants anything other then
what they have wrt. news.

	Of course, if you find Liberal Bias in the Wall Street Journal, I
fear that there's not much hope for you either.

>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.

	My newspaper reports that although we are not in a recession, the
public still believes that we are. They observe that we have not been in 
recession for some time, and that the press has been reporting it, but
the public does not believe the press (or the president). They have not
referred to "the current recession" in quite some time. People judge the
economy by the number of people they now who are [not] working, and the 
last time they got a raise. Most of the people that I know haven't seen a 
raise in 2 years, and many of them are wondering if they are going to
need a new (probably lower paying) job by spring. The hourly people are
watching their hours get cut, and the salaried people are looking at
furlows. (Most of my friends are blue collar)

	As for comparing the current recession to 1982, I would say that
the "worst" is subjective. Unemployment, using the 1982 scheme for 
calculating it, is not quite as bad, but the dip has lasted much longer.
The actual growth dip wasn't hasn't been as deep as 1982, but the average
level of growth is no where near what we had in 1982, and the recovery
has been much slower. With respect to overall performace and long term
effects on the economy, it is arguable that this last recession (and the
current slow recovery) is the worst since WWII.

	For example: 1980-1984 saw 7 million new jobs created, in spite 
of the recession that fell in the middle of that period. 1988-1992 saw a
decrease in the total number of jobs, and a general shift from salary
positions to hourly ones, a poor indicator. Since population growth was
similar for the two periods, we can see that from the individuals point
of view, things are worse now. low inflation doesn't help much if your
salary is a constant.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3511 alt.rush-limbaugh:6462 talk.abortion:40347