From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:49:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: mpye@netcom.com's message of 19 Nov 92 03:01:00 -0400

In article <1992Nov19.070100.3115@netcom.com> mpye@netcom.com (Michael
Pye) writes, quoting me:
>>The point of all this is that I don't think conservative complaints
>>about media bias are imagined.  However, Michael Pye's attack on TNR
>>on this score are misplaced.
>
>You've missed the point entirely.  Whether a particular magazine or 
>newspaper or whatever is biased or not is irrelevant.  
>
>The New Republic certainly has a right to print whatever they want.  I
>don't care what filler they use between the covers.  But if someone is
>going to start arguing a point based on "facts" they got from TNR, that's
>a different matter entirely.

If that's the point you're talking about, I don't think I missed it.
It was right here (this is from my post, referenced above):

>. . . and no one has maintained that "The New Republic" ought to be
>held to standards of objectivity, since they don't claim objectivity.
>Like "National Review" and "The Nation," TNR is a journal of opinion.
>That wouldn't excuse them if they were making things up and presenting
>them as fact, but that's not what has been alleged here.

That doesn't mean it's OK to present falsehoods as fact.  However, 
dislike it as you may, TNR is still a fairly credible source.  Their
staff are held to normal journalistic standards.  They may slant
things and present things and persons they like in the most favorable
light (and the opposite for others), but no serious person alleges
that they have *no* credibility when reporting facts or statistics.  I
read "National Review" regularly (and TNR spottily), and their
editorial staff is frequently jumping on TNR for some distortion or
another, but it is usually in the spirit of rebuttal, and they do not
accuse TNR of outright falsehood.

>In this case, it is essential that the obvious and stated bias of the
>source be brought out front.  If the source publically admits that
>what it prints might be a lie, and that it's up to the reader to
>decide whether it's a lie or the truth, that absolutely must be
>pointed out.  If you choose to believe what they print without
>thinking it through and checking it against other sources, fine.

Oh, right.  I suppose you want them to print, on their cover or
masthead, "WARNING: the contents of this journal 'might be a lie.'"
That is hardly fair.  TNR is a respected journal of opinion with a
solid reputation for fair and reasonable debate.  They may make
mistakes like anyone else, but their opponents on the responsible
Right give them the presumption of innocence on this score, and
rightly so.  (I speak, I believe, as a member of that "responsible
Right.")
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23961 talk.politics.misc:60455 tx.politics:7392