Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Wednesday, 29 Jul 1992 15:56:42 MST
From: <ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Distribution: usa
 <1992Jul22.143241.13229@afit.af.mil> <1992Jul22.164951.22822@umbc3.umbc.edu>
 <1992Jul22.190252.16079@afit.af.mil> <1992Jul23.031505.27129@seq.uncwil.edu>
 <1992Jul23.141201.23367@afit.af.mil> <1992Jul24.022144.18386@seq.uncwil.edu>

In article <1992Jul24.022144.18386@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack
C. Sessions) says:
>
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>
>>Great knee-jerk!  All I asked you to do was listen.  I made a point of
>>it myself last night (NBC news).  When the topic came up, the Pro-Lifers
>>were called Anti-Abortionists.  This is certainly not always the case,
>>but it happens MUCH more  often than you will hear "Pro-Abortion" used.
>>Apart from my own personal observations, I have some stats from a few
>>years ago to back the claim up. I can post them tomorrow if you have to
>>see them.
>
>WHO referred to the Pro-lifers as anti-abortionists? Tom Brokaw? The
>correspondent reporting the story? Or maybe someone who was interviewed?
>I don't know. I rarely have watched NBS news since Huntley-Brinkley
>retired. I usually get my news from CNN and ABC. (Regarding your
>surprising comments that you feel that CNN presents a more unbiased
>point of view than the others, maybe that is why I have not seen all
>of the reports you claim have been happening referring to pro-lifers
>as anti-abortionists.)
>
Try listening to any local news or local radio stations. More often than
not a pro-life activist or pro-life gathering will be referred to as
anti-abortion, anti-abortion activists, abortion foes etc.  You very
rarely hear the media refer to 'Pro-life' but almost always hear
Pro-Choice.  To quote sources for this I would have to be writing all day.
The original poster was correct, all you have to do is listen.

>>As to whether you think the tag is a good choice or not, who cares?  I
>>personally believe both sides' choice of labels are a bit of indirection
>>from the issue.  That isn't the debate though, is it?  The point is that
>>labels are everything in politics and sound bites.  They form a
>>subconcious impression when used over and over.  That's why both sides
>>of most all issues prefer a positive spin to their names.  And more
>>often than not, the media accepts without modification the choice of a
>>liberal organization's name, but seems to believe that the public should
>>be protected from a conservative generated label.  The fact that most
>>people never notice is all the more alarming.  (Again, specific instances
>>to follow tomorrow.)
>
>Who cares? Well, the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers seem to care.
>Pro-choicers are freqently referred to as pro-abortionists. It being

Only by Pro-Lifers certainly not the majority of the media.

>generally untrue, they don't like it. On the other hand, were is the
>only place and time the pro-lifers make news? When storming abortion
>clinics. Is it no wonder many people feel that the pro-life movement's
>agenda is really one of anti-abortion?
>

I don't think there is any doubt as to what the pro-life agenda is but
why use the metaphor for Pro-abortionists and not Pro-Lifers

>Sure, you can probably come up with several news reports which back up your
>claims. If you're listening for them, you'll hear them. If I had really
>felt that there was such a bias in the reporting of the abortion debate,
>I would have been able to probably produce just as many news reports which
>did NOT refer to the pro-lifers are anti-abortionists. Therefore, your

Not unless your watching 700 club or one of the few other conservative
based news or topic programs.

>specific instances will not mean all that much to me.
>
>--

Eric Owens
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc