From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias -- no one else will
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:02:45 GMT

In <1992Sep10.085302.27138@wri.com> walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:

>In article <1992Sep8.183029.16207@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>>
>>The "balance" being discussed here is one of the approach to the
>>story. Case in point: the recent coverage of the respective
>>candidates' visits to Florida. Nearly every television report I saw
>>concerning the President's response to the disaster -- including the
>>ABC analysis of Bush's speech by Stone Philips & friends -- ended up
>>with a discussion of the President's political motives in visiting the
>>ravaged areas of Florida, etc. [ . . . ]
>>
>>Contrast this with the coverage of Clinton's visit down there. I've
>>seen little or no speculation as to his political motives in this
>>situation. 
>>
>>As someone pointed out a couple of days ago, Bush does have some
>>reason to be there in Florida: he sent in troops to help with
>>emergency shelters and is in fact responsible for them. Why on earth
>>is Clinton there? He's not about to send in the Arkansas National
>>Guard. His main motivation can only be to win votes.
>>
>>This is the type of media bias I (and so many others) are sick and
>>tired of. Indeed, the facts get reported -- most of them -- but with
>>a nauseatingly blatant spin.
>>
>>-- 
>>Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           

>If nauseating media bias is perceived, there is always the possibility
>that some news consumer bias is to blame.  With respect to the Florida
>visit thing, I agree that the President's visit was explicitly
>referred to as political more than Clinton's visit was, but there is
>an objective justification for that, resting on the very observations
>referred to above about the respective official capacities of Bush and
>Clinton in Florida.

>When the president hops on a plane and heads for a disaster area, that
>is considered part of his job as president.  I am sure George Bush
>claims this to be so, and I am sure his expenses were paid out of
>the Executive's budget, not campaign funds.  So, if the visit is
>nominally apolitical, but political motives are obvious to
>reporters, they ought to mention it.

>Clinton is not President.  He cannot pretend to be on official
>business in Florida.  _Everywhere_ he goes is political, and
>we all know it.  Why would the media waste our time telling us this?

Look at the last paragraph here. Clinton did a *great* job of fooling
the American people into thinking he had some business in Florida
other than milking votes. He got the media to turn a blind eye to his
objectives. "Why would the media waste our time telling us this?"
Simply put, because many people WON'T recognize what Slick Willie is
up to. The real question is: Why *didn't* the media spend *equal* time
telling us this -- that is as much time as they spent flaming George
for going down there? 

The only answer to this last question is media bias. Plain and simple.
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5594 alt.politics.bush:5260 alt.politics.marrou:1180