X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:44:21 EDT
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Nattering Nabobs of Negativism
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET" at Sep 2, 92 4:12 pm

A person going by the name of ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET forged:

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

	First, I would like to say I don't *neccesarily* disagree with
your overall point, however, your examples are flawed.
	A) Objectivbity does not mean making up false stories, or
emphasizing things which aren't important (Yes, I realize that's
subjective, but so is life).
	B) Just because the views are negative does not mean they were
all written by liberal writers. Many, Many Republicans believed that
the convention was divisive and hate-filled, as did the majority of
Americans.
	C) If you might notice, as we swing into the general election
season, Both major candidates are getting hit hard. And, since you
mention Newsweek, a cursory glance of this weeks Newsweek shows them
hitting Clinton pretty hard.


| Instead, the magazine printed:

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

	It wasn't "nuetral." Those articles were Anti-Republican
message or anti-Bush. HOWEVER, This does not make the press biased.
Remember, all 4 pieces there are OPINION pieces, and none of them were
based on FALSE information. Newsweek does not have the obligation to
run a positive convention spin piece, just like they didn't have the
obligation to run a negative spin piece on the Republicans or Bush
before the convention. {If recollection serves me correctly, the
Newsweek before the convention was very good to Bush/I don't remember
a negative spin on the Bush campaign}

| Seeing as how not less that 75% of practicing journalists have voted
| Democrat in every election from 1964 to 1984 (my statistics stop
| there), liberal bias in the media certainly doesn't seem too difficult
| to imagine.  I can't see how the media get away with this lopsidedness
| without someone raising more of a fuss.

	Most reporters strive to be subjective in thier reporting.
Despite the fact that they don't have to, most reporters who also act
the part of columnist/write Opinion pieces ALSO are very subjective in
thier writing of these pieces. Has Bush been being toasted lately. The
answer is obviously Yes. Does he deserve to be toasted. With a few
exceptions, Yes. Is Clinton being softpedaled. Yes, to a small extent.
I certainly hope this changes, and I don't see any reason why it
won't. Of course, It is funny how quickly people forget the grillings
Clinton took during the primary season, and the softpedaling of Bush
during The Gulf War.

	In my opinion, the media should be tougher on BOTH major
candidates. Of course, they should also cover other Presidential
candidates. On the first point, I think the media will. On the second,
I'll have to keep my fingers crossed for '96.

--
 Cousin It                                    cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
    I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't
         always agree with them    -President George Bush
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU