From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:03:04 GMT

In article <1eegqrINNg3a@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>
jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:

>In article <BALDWIN.92Nov18165303@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csserver.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>>
>>Neither is it what conservatives complain about when they talk about
>>"media bias."  I've never seen an analysis or accusation of such bias
>>(which I firmly believe exists in several major news organizations)
>>that included "biased" statements made by such journals of opinion.
>>
>I agree that *media bias* exists--a definite conservative bias.

       There are three biases in the "major media."

       First, there's the pro-media bias.  That's the watch-us-boost-
our-ratings-bias.  The Gulf conflict proved wars (shorts ones, anyway)
are good for business.  Nobody tunes in to see boring ole negotiations.

       Second, there's a pro-government bias.  A there's-a-problem-and-
by-god-something's-gotta-be-done-about-it!  Why the government?  It's
easy.  It's quick.  It's available.  You don't have to go looking for it.
It lends itself to thirty second spots and eight inch stories.  No complex
discussions of societal problems, just a demand to know why Congress hasn't
passed a law.

         Finally, there's the personality bias.  That ties into the
above "Watch-us" bias in that people are easier to attack than complex
issues.  It's probably why Clinton's draft issue got so much airtime and
Iran Contra didn't, beside the fact Iran Contra was old news.  The draft
is, when all is said and done, a single simple issue involves that doesn't
require in-depth explanation everytime it comes on the tube.  Iran Contra
is much more complex.
         Besides, people are more fun to trash than bureaucracies, and
that's a lot of what IranContra is.

>Look at
>the coverage we were offered leading up to and during the Gulf War.  I am
>aware of several anti-war rallies held in New Haven which the local and
>national media refused to air.  All we got was anti-Saddam propaganda
>designed to hype us for the war.  It was pathetic, and if you think a
>liberal bias produced the pandering to Bush the networks and newspapers
>called news, then you have a very selective memory.

       The media panders to the viewers most often.  Wars are good
for business.  Where they've got time to interject their own slants
in independent of what sells, they vary on issue to issue and probably
shouldn't be labeled liberal or conservative.  The probably need their
own label.

>If you don't like that example, then look at abortion.  Almost no TV
>show mentions the word, even if the plot includes one.  I see "Life,
>what a beautiful choice" ads several times a day, but I have *never* seen
>a commercial offering abortion services.  If that is not a conservative
>bias, what is?

       The news mentions abortion constantly.  To most of them, there
are "pro-choice activists" and and "anti-abortion protestors."

       As for the "Life," commercials, in the first place I can't see how
you can possible object to them.  I'd rather they bought air-time than
spent their money blocking clinics and lobbying legislatures.  Second, I'll
match you tit-for-tat and raise you.

       Some bozo (ooooh, shades of the Bushman) had to get put on the ballot
to get his graphic anti-abortion adds on the air.

       And, most of the major networks refuse ad time to the NRA.

>Also, people like George Will, Pat Robertson, Bill Buckley, Pat Buchanan,
>William Safire, John Sununu, David Gergen, David Brinkley, etc. have quite
>an impact on the media--they all contribute to the conservative bias.

       Pat Robertson practically owns a television station.  Small wonder
you see him on the tube.  But what about that bastion of conservatism
MTV?

       Besides, how can you complain about conservative media bias and
miss that icon of the airwaves, Rush Limbaugh?

       The media is in business for itself, mostly.  There's a me bias, and
most of them do what they do because they think it will get ratings.

>Clinton is extremely conservative for a Democrat; Bush angered conservatives
>and acted like a fool during the election.  That is why the conservative
>bias was of no help to George Bush, latest victim of the nationwide trend
>of restructuring.

       If that was a conservative media bias, all the people responsible
for it need to be taken out and shot.  Incompetent doesn't even begin
to cover it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23923 tx.politics:7379 talk.politics.misc:60391