From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 18:32:38 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.037 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In  <1992Sep7.110455.2113@afit.af.mil>  jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> altman@leland.Stanford.EDU (John David Altman) writes:
>
> >One of the original sources of the recent spate of "media bias" was Brit
> >Hume of ABC news, a regular tennis partner (or is it jogging partner) of
> >the president.  Then there is Thomas Friedman of the NYT, a good buddy
> >of James Baker.  And the MacNeil-Lehrer Administration Forum News Hour.
>
> >In this era when the media think that the major requirement for carrying out
> >their job is to cultivate sources (cocktail party journalism), the
> >accusation of media bias is ridiculous.
>
>
> >                               John
>
> Well, you've sold me!  I guess all that liberal bias I see in the news
> isn't really there afterall, since, as you say, it doesn't make any
> sense for it to be there.
>
> You know, it's funny.  When I brought this up (and I certainly wasn't
> the first), I gave many examples right from the paper, TV, etc.  I
> posted polls showing the liberal tendencies of the media, I posted
> statistics on how biased the media was with regard to the abortion

Unfortunately I haven't seen your appends but await more.
I will, however, respond to this one.

> debate, and gave plenty of *reasons* why it exists.  And about the only
> criticism I received was that my "evidence" was purely annecdotal.

'my "evidence"'  Could there be "bias" in the creation
of  "your evidence."

I follow the topic of "bias in the media" and find it quite interesting.
I had an append just recently that this append addresses.  It's point
was that even if the media is biased (maybe it is, I tend to think it isn't),
people pay for it by reading it, tuning into it, etc...  What are you
proposing to do about that?  Money talks, media biased just contributes!


> But there is another crowd who try to show that it doesn't really exist
> because of reasons like you state above.  "There is really a
> conservative bias, because the media is owned by businesses."  "There is
> really a consumer bias, because they have to sell papers."  And of

Definitely.  That's my point.

> course your assertion that there are indeed reporters who are friendly
> with the President.  None of this jives with what I, and others, see
> every night on the news or read in the papers.  These are just attempts
> to rationalize your own positions and treat the "whiners" as being
> uncredible.
>
> There is one major difference between what I've been saying
> and people like you.  I see the bias, post examples and look for the

"people like you"  Whoa!

> reasons that it might be there.  You and your crowd just post these

"You and your crowd"  Double Whoa!

> trite rebutals and think that refutes everything I've said.  Get a clue.

"Get a clue."  Triple Whoa!

> I still maintain that no honest person can objectively watch or read the
> majority of the news and *not* see a liberal bias.  It's there, and
> plenty of people in the news media know it and admit it.  And pointing

"plenty of people in the news media know it and admit it."  Just because
one reporter admits biased does a "plenty" make!

> out that there are conservative reporters, or that the media has a
> product to sell, or that they are owned by business makes for a good
> foundation for showing why your brand of bias exists, but *nobody* has
> given us anything other than these premises.  Show me how these premises

"us"  Who is "us?"

> affect the news--as I've shown you how the liberal bias affects it.  If
> it is there, I'd like to see examples of it.  I promise not to bury my head
> in the sand.
>
> And if some of the things I've said I posted didn't make it into this
> newsgroup, I'd be happy to repost some of them (I don't keep most things
> though...)
>
> --
>
> Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing."
> jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire

I find your append very devisive.  Or, is that a "liberal, not politically correct"
word to use.

The argument that the media is "biased" is just another means to divide and distract the
masses (of which I'm a part of and I admit, I've been distacted)
from discussing the issues.  Instead of discussing the issues, we spend our time
discussing the means in which the issues are discussed (which could actually be an
issue).

As I said before, even if the media is biased, what are you("we," we're all in this
together) going to do about it?

A few "witty sayings" pertinent to this append:

 "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"

 "Don't shoot the messenger" - please!


Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion