Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Bias? What Bias?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 01:33:27 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug22.152420.20024@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> > 
> >That simple - rough cut - analysis is the best way of seeing *why* 80% - or
> >some similarly high percentage - do not support right wing views. Most
> >Americans don't, so this is simply reflected in the journalism profession.
> > 
> >What confuses the issue is that the Republicans have support in the Congress
> >and the Senate completely out of proportion with the *real* support they have
> >in the country as a whole - including non-voters. A more democratic voting
> >system would give voters more choice. Look how desperate people were to back
> >Ross Perot! All they want is more choice - but the present US system denies
> >this choice to voters and preserves power for the two blocs who currently swap
> >it periodically.
> 
> This is astounding logic (especially considering your statement below).
> So, since the House is by far Democratic, that proves that the country
> is the same.  But the Senate and (and the Presidency you seem to have
> forgotten) don't prove more of a balance--they are completely out of
> proportion with the *real* support.  How's this for a comparable
> counter-argument: Since the majority of votes have gone for Republican
> Presidents for the last three elections, that proves most of the country
> is really Republican and the Legislative branch is way out of proportion
> to the *real* support.  That last part is the confusing part...

It shouldn't be confusing. Most Americans didn't vote for *anyone* as
President. Bush won with a majority of less than half of the total voting age
population. The electoral college further distorts the outcome - potentially -
as the candidate who wins most votes in the US system may still lose the
election. 
 
If only 48% of voters actually *vote*, then even if the winner has 55% of
votes, he still has the active support of barely 25-27% of *all* voting-age
Americans.
 
Further complicating things is the fact that with only two candidates, many
people will vote *against* the man they don't want - as opposed to voting for
someone they do want. Look how many were willing to support Perot! They
plainly want something other than the two, tired, old parties. But the US
political system makes that almost impossible. There *are* no alternatives.

> 
> >> All we ask is that the general public be aware of the fact that most
> >> reporters and editors in the mainstream and quality media are clearly
> >> to the left of most of their readers
> >                 ^^^^
> >This is an amazing assertion. How do you know this? I would think this would
> >be a very difficult thing to determine. I wouldn't base my argument on this
> >point if i were you. The evidence suggests otherwise, as I have out lined
> >above. 
> 
> How do we know anything here in the U.S.?  We take a poll!  There have
> been many polls of the media and with no exception (I've seen) the
> national media leans heavily to the left.  For all the screaming about
> how this isn't possible, nobody in the media really refutes it.  They
> will tell you that it doesn't matter--they are professionals who have
> been trained to be objective.
> 
> Of course if we're using your method for figuring out how the U.S.
> *really* feels, I'll have to back down...

My method includes people who feel alienated by the whole political process
and feel that *no one* of any party represents them. Thsi group is one
American in two.....based on the stats about who actually votes and who
doesn't. The US has one of the lowest voter-turnout stats in the world.
Countries with multi-party, proportional voting systems typically have 80%+
voter turnout. When people have real choices, they vote. 
> 
> >The most you can do is ask people to honestly and with integrity report the
> >way they saw it. Attempts to deliberately manipulate are not to be tolerated.
> 
> >But you can't fault someone for saying what they really think. 
> 
> Yeah, you can. Especially if they are telling you at the same time that
> this *isn't* what they think (opinion), it's the facts.

What is a "fact"? That is another word that has no place in journalism. I
will agree there. One person's fact is another person's fiction - for sure!
When i said there is no objective reality.....I was completely serious. :-)
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activsm.d,alt.rush-limbaugh