From: Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Media Bias? YOU Decide. Resumes Tell All
Keywords: media bias networks
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:12:17 GMT

>>me
>Paul Havemann

>
>> IN any case, simply pointing out that this or that newsperson
>> has "liberal" (or at least non-rightist) opinions in no way constitutes
>> evidence that said person routinely biases his or her work in that direction.
>> Journalists (like most other professionals) have standards to which they
>> adhere.  One of them involves obtaining independent confirmation of reports.
>
>In which case, they fail miserably.  The amount of investigative time 
>devoted to uncovering any of several of Clinton's ...ummm, assertions, 
>shall we say, pales in comparison to the thousands of man-hours devoted to 
>Republican negativity.  Examples?  Clinton's main claim that this is "the 
>worst recession in 50 years" is a flat-out falsehood.  Was this debunked by 
>the network "campaign truth squads"?  No.  Not once.  Clinton's claim that 
>"Arkansas has the second-lowest tax rate" isn't so; was it debunked?  
>Again, no.
>
	I'll admit to being at something of a disadvantage since I get none
of my news from television, preferring to rely on NPR, Monitoradio, and the
newspapers.  I do recall being inundated by stories about Clinton's draft
record and trips abroad, and I recall commentators on NPR pointing out
exaggerations and/or outright lies from both the Bush and Clinton campaigns.
And I would be interested in your source for the claim that Arkansas does
not have the second-lowest personal income tax rate in the lower 48.
	
>> 	I am no more likely to accept that a moderate or liberal journalist
>> automatically biases his or her work than I am to accept that a conservative
>> journalist does so, without some actual evidence to support this claim.
>
>Very well.  Evidence abounds; whether you're willing to accept is up to
>you.  Here's one example for you: 
>
[...]
>
>More to the point, the EPI did NOT scrutinize Clinton's plan at all; the
>press somehow (?) never picked up on this.  MOST to the point, the networks
>never mention that the EPI was founded by (and is today run by) essentially
>the leadership of AFSCME -- the American Federation of State, County, and
>Municipal Employees -- which not only endorsed Clinton, but assigned
>thousands of members to Clinton's campaign.
>
	I'm unfamiliar with the EPI's analysis.  I *do* recall hearing
economists from various organizations (*including* The Heritage Foundation)
commenting negatively on the Clinton plan on NPR.  If your example has been
accurately described, then I'd say that this is, in fact, bad journalistic
practice.  But one example does not a conspiracy make.  The folks over at
FAIR have many examples of what they regard as *conservative* bias in the
media--examples that are just as compelling as yours.
	What I'm suggesting is that one can find examples of shoddy reportage
that discriminate against both ends of the political spectrum, especially if
one a) asumes that they exist and b) looks for them carefully.  Both FAIR and
AIM seem to be quite good at this.

>By comparison, the Heritage Foundation's analysis of Clinton's economic 
>plan was instanly dismissed by the media.  Did you read about it?  Bet not.
>If you were lucky enough to find it in the back pages, you no doubt saw the
>HF described as a "right-wing organization".  Is this balanced?
>
	Well, as I say, I've heard from them repeatedly on NPR, which you would
probably regard as a hotbed of liberalism.  And I don't think HF would deny
that it is, indeed, a politically conservative organization.
>>>And don't forget Michael Gartner, president of NBC News: "There is no 
>>>reason for anyone outside of the police or military to own a gun."
>>>
>> Would you assume that he was more objective if he belonged to the NRA?
>
>Ignore the point, if you will, that the president of NBC News has called 
>for the repeal of the Second Amendment.  Can you reasonably expect to find 
>balanced coverage of the gun-control issue on NBC?  Hey, if you want to 
>refute me, please post a pro-gun statement made by any president of any 
>news network in the past, say, fifteen years.
>
	The statement you quoted does not call for the repeal of the Second
Amendment.  And, as I noted earlier, it does not constitute prima facie
evidence of bias by that network on the issue.  If you have evidence of such
bias, of course, that is another matter.

>>>Then there's Ted Turner; 'Captain Planet' was his brainchild, and he
>>>married "Hanoi" Jane Fonda.  Nuff said there. 
>>>
>> 	I was unaware that "Captain Planet" was a news show.
>
>And ignore this point, too, that the woman Turner married is the polar
>opposite of a right-winger.  Again, feel free to refute this point by, for 
>example, telling us how many network owners are married to *prominent*
>Republicans.
>
	What difference does it make?  The point itself is irrelevant.  I
have no idea of the political leanings of the spouses of the owners, board
members, or CEOs of any networks.  Nor do I think it constitutes evidence of
anything in particular.  You're asking us to assume that everyone whose
politics differ from your own is unprincipled and will routinely bias and
distort information according to their ideology.  I would not make this
about a person simply because he or she is a conservative.  Why should I do
so if that person is moderate or liberal?
>>>How about Jane Pauley?  Married to some comic-strip writer named Trudeau.  
>>>Writes some pap called "Doonesbury."
>>>
>> 	Happens to be a very popular strip.  I'm sure you dislike it's
>> politics, but then no one is forcingg you to read it, are they?
>
>Batting a thousand today.  You don't see any conflict between an obviously 
>ideological anchor interpreting the news under the guise of 'objectivity'?
>
	Do you have evidence that this is happening, or are you assuming it
simply because you don't like her politics?

>I am not under the illusion that favoring an ideology means that 
>one can't be objective, perhaps even most of the time.  But to argue that a 
>reporter can NEVER be biased, as you seem to...
>
	No, that's not what I said.  I said that it was invalid to assume that
a reporter is ALWAYS biased (at least if that reporter is liberal) and this
bias will ALWAYS be reflected in his or her reporting.  I don't doubt that
individual cases of bias and sloppy  reportage occur on both ends of the
political spectrum.  I *do* doubt that there's any monolithic, one-sided
conspiracy afoot.
>Do correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by the tenor of your arguments, it
>seems to me that you're more interested in tossing out straw men than in
>debating the topic on its merits. 
>
	Indeed?  Seems to me you've raised quite a bit of straw yourself,
especially with the personal attacks on Pauley and the Turners.  You will 
note an absence of this sort of name-calling in my posts.  Also a lack of
insulting verbiage directed at you.  Let's try to keep this civil.
>------
>
> Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
> Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
> "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.news-media