From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Explanation for not reporting SC rally
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:23:49 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep14.215016.19267@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
> In article <1992Sep13.175453.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>>      To make matters worse, I then started reading the opinions
>> and editorials on the same page -- and all of them are anti-Bush!  
>> They are entitled:
>>      Bush League Foreign Policy
>>      The Loop Tightens around Bush
>>      Look at the Record
>>      How to Value Families
>>      Questions for Bush  (semi-anti-Bush)
>>      No Tears for Marilyn  (anti Marilyn Quayle)
>> 
>> No mention of Clinton is given outside of a draft dodger cartoon!
>> This lack of BALANCE makes it harder to believe their
>> justification for omission of an anti-Clinton event.  Can any of
>> you who believe no bias exists try to explain this?
>> 
>>      Cary Perttunen
>>       
>> 
> 
> So Cary do you assert that one particular newspaper does not have the right
> to publish the editorial views that it sees fit on the editorial page?  Do
> you propse a national law of some kind that mandates that every pro
> democratic editorial must be followed by a pro-republican editorial.
> 
> Would you also deny papers the right to endorse candiadates in the
> Editorial section.  After all an editorial is a published expression of the
> opinion of editor or publisher,  and is clearly marked editorial rather
> then news (though I understand that Rush does not understand the difference
> and has quoted editorials selectively as proof of his own views (i.e.
> George Will on Al Gore).
> 
> Living in Chicago our main newspaper is the Tribune,  the editorial staff
> of which tends to endorse Conservatives.  The fact that newpaper editors
> can publish editorials without worrying about a Political Correct quota is
> an important basis of our Republican Government.  
> 
> Perhapes Cary you should buy a few more of the newspapers,  see if Clinton
> does not come under attack,  see if letters to the editor agaisnt Clinton
> are not published.  Clearly the paper responded to attacks of bias and did
> publish a cartoon against Clinton.
> 
> I wonder if Rush Relativists understand that bias is a serious charge. 
> Granted everyone "intelligent person is going to be biased in some way". 
> The assertion that the entire news media is biased, and intentionally or
> unintentionally misrepresents that truth in order promoted a certain
> political party is so serious,  I for one would like to see soem real
> evidence.  Not just the titles of one days editorials in one paper, but
> hard long term objective data from a random sample of nations news
> providers which shows a clear bias towards the Democratic party and against
> the Republicans.  
> 
     Bob, you have me wrong.  I do not believe that any *quotas* 
need to be mandated and I do believe that newspaper editors have the 
right to endorse a candidate.  The problem I have is with the 
credibility of claiming to be unbiased (which is what the Courier-Journal 
did) and then having a 6 to 0 bias in favor of Clinton in the op-ed
pieces.
     Obviously, from my postings, you probably have come to the
conclusion that I have a conservative bias.  Now, what if I make
the statement that "I am unbiased?"  You *would* not believe me,
and moreover, you *should* not believe me.  I admit that I have 
a bias.  The problem is that the various media sources claim to
be "objective" and "unbiased" -- I believe they should never
make such claims or inferences.
     I know you would like to see more real evidence.  I hope to
bring you some in the future.

     Cary Perttunen  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections