From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:25:00 GMT

dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:

>Chip says that, in "poll of the experts" stories, the media should have
>to identify the experts, and that would keep them in their place.  

Steve:  I now you're a reprter and all, but these paraphrases of my
posts are getting to me.  And since this so beautifully illustrates my
point, I'll go on.  If you were to have included what I actually said,
I could prove to you that I did not say, "put them in their place."
What I said was, "make them more accountable."  Now, isn't that a little less
harsh than your version?  See what a difference including sources
makes?

>But
>Chip, I have never read an article on expert opinion that, after the
>first paragraph, didn't start naming names.  If that's all you want,
>then I think you've already got it.  Are you saying that you only
>object to the headlines and ledes that summarize the stories, but
>not the stories themselves?

Most articles do not start naming names--they name *name*.  See if this
sounds familar.  Experts agree that...[ ]  Joe Shmoe, an economist from
the Brookings Institure said this. "..."  The only time any story names
names is when there are some quotes that back up the story.  I want to
know who all the other experts are this reporter is getting his info 
from.  It's too easy to just say, "experts agree".  That's where the
accountability comes in.

>Most of these stories will go even further, identifying the Brookings
>economists as being associated with a "liberal" think tank, a Hoover
>economist with a "conservative" think tank, a Cato economist with
>a "libertarian" (or sometimes, ignorantly, "conservative") think tank.
>I like this, although I know some conservatives who work for Brookings
>(John Chubb for example has a career advocating school choice).

I disagree with this.  And you've read the statistics on what I'm talking
about.  The majority of times places like Brookings are mentioned, they
do *not* identify it as a liberal source.  They do go out of their way
it seems to label all conservative sources as "conservative",
"right-wing", or "far right-wing", etc.

>If critics are only confronting the summary headlines ("Bush's Plan
>Gets Mixed Reviews" from the Wall St. Journal yesterday, for example)
>and summary lead paragraphs, then I think I would agree with them.
>Not only do these headlines impart no information whatsoever, they
>do leave excessive room for "interpretation."  I have seen headlines
>that said "Mixed Reviews" when the actual story had five people in favor,
>one against, for example.  Plus, these headlines aren't even interesting,
>so I see no reason they should be maintained for commercial purposes.
>So I would support the suggestion that these types of headlines should
>be replaced, maybe with something generic such as:
>Experts polled on Bush's Plan
>Experts Review Bush's Plan

When you complain about headlines you sound like a whiner, so I try not
to.  I think some get out of hand, but most of them are so bad that it's
hard to show any bias other than sensationalism.  It's there, though, if
you look. 

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d