From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bias Evidence (was Re: Explanation for not reporting SC rally)
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:27:19 GMT
Organization: ILS

In article <1992Sep15.162344.9631@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip
Switzer) writes:
> 
> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep14.234650.3181@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip
> >Switzer) writes:

> And I do apologize for forgetting to include my "Disclaimer for the 
> Logically Impaired."  You will notice that nowhere in my post did I 
> even imply that this bit of evidence *proves* anything.  It was given
> as an example. 
> 


Logically Impaired,  well let me quote you;

> Below is one of the most damning pieces of evidence for a charge of
> liberal bias in the media. 

You implie evidence,  evidence is defined not as an example of a general
law but facts or signs from which a conclusion can be baised.  Roget's
Thesaurus givces demonstration as word with similiar meaning.  An example
is an illustration, defined as a member of a group.

Yopu said that twhat you presented was evidence, evidence promotes the
truth of a certain assertion.  Example illustrate principles.  You are the
Logically Impaired party in this situation.

I myself have actually worked with hundreds of hours of news footage and
know someone how work on press covering Carter in 79 and 80.  The new
conservative relativists attack that the press has a pro-democratic bias is
alot of shit.  Though there is no doubt that at times the press has been
pro just about anything, the press gave Carter a very hard time in 80 and
just about eat Kennedy alive.

Oh by the way,  do any of you know the party of Dan Rather?  Dan is a
republican.

Personally I don't know what bias would mean.  I understand what skewed
means,  drawing conclusion from samples draws unrandomly.  But bias, well I
would like a definition of what bias in the US press would mean.  

Clearly until recently the Soviet press was biased because one agency
controlled by one organization.  This form of bias is truely not so in the
United States.

On the other hand bias is to haver beliefs that effect judgment.  Under
this definition the press is biased in its selection what is news because
it is biased by space and time constrants.  Political coverage in this
country is clearly biased in favor of democrats and Republicans against
Socialists, Marxist, Anarchists, Libertarians, Muslim Fundemantalist, etc.

Ofcourse you assert that media has a liberal bias;  

"I really doubt that you can "easily" find conservative bias in the news.
It must exist, in some places, but the "mass media" consistently shows
a pro-liberal bias in the general case."

And you give an idiotic test for bias that would enable people to shout
bias into existence.  

In truth it is very simple why the Rush Relativists have dicovered the
biased press attack,  it is the same reason that the Peace movement found
it in the Gulf War.  There were even some foundations for bias during
D.S.S.,  the NBC camera team that went to Iraq and recorded a number of
things including the baby food formual returns to the US to be fired and
have its pictures of bombed food transports and ruined Iraq families and
children not shown.  

Ofcourse a single case of bad reporting does not prove a bias,  the Peace
movement climed a bias in the press because it wanted to deny the fact that
things were not going the way they wanted it to;  the nation was behind the
war, it was going quickly,  Saddam was a shit head.  These facts were not
to their liking, so they climed bias.  

In Universities all over America some students of color and women do not
like the view of history they get, they do not like what the Classics are
telling them.  Rather then deal with the fact theat Plato may have said
some dumb things about women yet overall was a bright guy they attempt to
attack Plato that he was biased and therefore should not be taught.

These scary PC groups use the exact same proof of bias that you do,  we say
there is bias and there are alot of us saying it.

Now Republicans and COnservatives faced with an unpopular Presiedent and a
deep economic slow down find the news uncomforting.  Therefore they take
the same easy road that the Peace Movement and the PC movement has they
claim bias.

The simplicity that people make the charge;  women, blacks, now
conservatives, is realy scary.  Are we entering an age where if I read
something I do not like I need not believe it or think about it because it
must be biased.

Lately I have read a number of articiles in the press that cause me to
worry about a CLinton win.  For social policy reasons I find that I must
vote for Clinton,  but still some things that I read cause me to doubt him;
 what am I to do?

In the age of PCism and Rush Relativisims, the answer is all to easy, 
simply claim bias and feel good;

DON'T WORRY,  CLAIM BIAS.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties