X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:16:00 EDT
From:         the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Nattering Nabobs of Negativism

Jason Z:
>I just finished watching a discussion on CNN about whether or not the media
>have been biased against Bush during this campaign.  While I thought Bush's
>media coverage was relatively fair prior to either party's convention, it seems
>to me irrefutable that the media have abandoned all pretense of objectivity
>since the Democratic Convention.

If the media isn't being objective, then it must be distorting portions of
Bush's record.  Which portions do you feel are being distorted?

>Take, for example, Newsweek's coverage of the
>GOP convention.  It ran four "opinion" articles related to the convention.
>Since Newsweek purports to be an unbiased purveyor of news,

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahah...guffaw...hee... (pause to catch breath).  Sorry
about that.  Do go on.

>I would expect
>these articles to be roughly balanced between liberal and conseravtive writers.

There is a difference between being "objective" and being "balanced".
"Balanced" implies that the statistical amount of verbiage in support of
one side of an issue is more or less equal to the amount of verbiage on the
other side of the issue.  When a part of the media does not balance it's
verbiage, it becomes "unbalanced", or "biased".

"Objective", on the other hand, implies that the media is reporting what
appears to be the actual condition of events, regardless of the personal
views of those doing the reporting.  Since human perception is subjective,
actual objectivity is not attainable, though one can strive to be more
objective by becoming aware of one's own subjective biases and compensating
for them.  The confusion enters when someone whom is not "objective" is
referred to as "biased", leading to the erroneous linking of "objective"
and "balanced."

Take the articles you cited, for example:

>one article calling the GOP convention "A Festival of Hatemongering and
>Fear."
>one article accusing George Bush of lying to the nation.
>one article on the GOPs divisive tactics and hypocrisy, and...
>one article about how Perot should get back into the race.

While these articles certainly indicate a lack of "balance" in Newsweek's
opinion articles, that does not necessarily mean they are not "objective".
(Though, considering this is Newsweek, I'd hardly expect "objective" to
apply, either).  For instance, is the article accusing Bush of lying
inaccurate?  Was he, in fact, telling the truth?  Is the article on the
GOPs divisive tactics and hypocrisy simply making things up, or is it
relating information that provides a generally accurate picture of what
is going on?

This is certainly not intended to imply that the media is "objective" -
liberal and conservative agendas tend to be pushed willy-nilly over the
airwaves.  The point is that there is more to being "objective" than
simply plopping conservative and liberal verbiage on the scales and seeing
if they weigh the same.  While I'm skeptical as to whether the media has
ever come close to being "objective" in recent decades, the pretense is
certainly still there.  It's just that, in Bush's situation, where his
negatives so outweigh his positives, there's not much point in trying to
puff up his positives in a misguided attempt at "balance".

>Now regardless of what you thought of the GOP convention, I don't see how that
>can possibly be considered "neutral" coverage.

The weird part is that it came from Newsweek, the nation's leading fluffy
conservative advocacy journal, as opposed to Time, the nation's leading fluffy
liberal advocacy journal.  Maybe the writers faxed the stories to the wrong
magazines.

>Jason

Gary W. Olson               "That's tonight's 'Unsolved Mysteries.' Next
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU week we'll present wildly inconclusive evidence
62 days and counting down... on the Amelia Earhart disappearance, U.F.O.'s
                             and God. Be there!"-Evan Dorkin's "Milk & Cheese"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU