From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Bias Evidence (was Re: Explanation for not reporting SC rally)
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:46:50 GMT

hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:

>In article <1992Sep13.175453.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
>I wonder if Rush Relativists understand that bias is a serious charge. 
>Granted everyone "intelligent person is going to be biased in some way". 
>The assertion that the entire news media is biased, and intentionally or
>unintentionally misrepresents that truth in order promoted a certain
>political party is so serious,  I for one would like to see soem real
>evidence.  Not just the titles of one days editorials in one paper, but
>hard long term objective data from a random sample of nations news
>providers which shows a clear bias towards the Democratic party and against
>the Republicans.  

Yes, most conservatives realize that the charge of bias in the media is
a serious one.  It's notoriously the liberals who dismiss not only the
charge, but the evidence as trivial.  

Below is one of the most damning pieces of evidence for a charge of
liberal bias in the media.  It is being reposted as many have not seen
it.  It deals with an idealological choice most news organizations have
made to not use a chosen label for the anti-abortion organizations and
to willingly use the label chosen by the pro-abortion organizations. 

We have already gone round and round about what everybody thinks about the
labels and for the most part these discussions have merely pointed out
the fact that intelligent people on both sides of the debate have real
problems with both labels.  Nobody will convince me or many others that
the only reason one label is used and not the other is simply a matter
intelligence or "reasonability"--the choice is one of ideology, pure
and simple.  Both labels were chosen for their PR value, and like
I've stated before, in a battle for public opinion, labels are
everything.

I can only hope the ensuing discussion will focus on the *issue*
and not the typical, "But that's not bias becuase I don't think "Pro-
Life" is a reasonable name!"  Debating whether or not you think the
label is correct or not does not address the issue that the media has
made an idealogical decision--you are simply supporting that decision
and that is irrelevant.


During four months in 1988 (during the presidential race and after the 
Supreme Court agreed to hear a controversial abortion case), the MRC[1]
reviewed all stories that discussed abortion aired on NBC, CBS, ABC, and 
CNN primetime news shows.  

The media used the "pro-choice" label 97 percent of the time when referring
to the pro-abortion side of the debate.  They used the "pro-life" label just
21 percent of the time when refering to the anti-abortion side (usually 
calling them "anti-abortionists").  Again, this has nothing to do with the
validity of the two sides' choice of names--only whether or not the media
chooses to use the chosen (positively spun) label, or whether it instead 
makes the judgement that another (more accurate?) label should be used.  

Just one example.  It happens over the entire spectrum of conservative vs.
liberal news stories.  Perhaps the biggest injustice done by the media is in
constantly labeling conservative ideas or people as "right-wing", or "arch-
conservative", or some other warning to the public to watch out for the 
following idea.  They rarely use anything but the self-chosen name in reporting
on liberal ideas or people.  When was the last time you heard Ted Kennedy 
called a "radical liberal", or "left-wing" (by the media)?

[1] _And That's The Way It Isn't, A Refference Guide To Media Bias_, MRC, 1990


-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5003 talk.politics.guns:20840 talk.abortion:36123