From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:06:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep8.233948.12289@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>  constraint?   If you try to present "all" points of view how do you
>>  decide what's a relevant point of view?   How do you decide what weight
>>  to give different claims, or different sides of an issue?   Should you
>>  give everything equal weight or try to give more emphasis to those
>>  views with more following?  In the recent balanced budget amendment
>>  vote over a hundred leading economists including a number (I think 6)
>>  of Nobel laureates signed an open letter opposing the amendment.  Did
>>  this represent the majority view among economists, or merely that of
>>  a vocal minority?  How should this be "objectively" reported?  Should
>>  the press have actively sought out enough leading economists who 
>>  supported the amendment to provide "balance"?   
>
>I for one, don't expect the media to trot out the only economist that 
>doesn't believe in some plan.  It's enough for me to know who is 
>saying what.  I'd like to know if there are experts in disagreement--
>that gives me a clue as to the complexity of the issue.  I don't need
>to hear 10 minutes from each side, no matter how small a faction one
>or the other is--that just gives the false inpression that there are
>just as many "experts" opposed, as for, some topic (something I think
>the media does all to often).  Being objective doesn't mean giving
>equal time to each side of a debate--I'll settle for knowing that there
>*is* another side in most cases.


   But there is "another side" in almost every debate.  As we know from
   reading Usenet there are people who believe in flying saucers, people
   who don't believe the NAZIs killed millions of Jews, people who think
   that AIDS isn't caused by HIV, and so on and so forth.  You can find 
   opposing "experts" on just about any topic. 

   It's an interesting problem for an "objective" journalist:  merely
   mentioning a mainstream idea doesn't add any more credence to it because
   everybody already knows most mainstream concepts (that's why they're
   mainstream).  So presenting a "balanced" report on the Democrats, the
   Republicans and the LP doesn't really help the Democrats and Republicans
   because everybody has already heard of them and pretty much knows who
   they are.   But it gives a BIG boost to the LP if people see them being
   compared directly to the major parties.  So any journalist who does
   this is doing more to help the LP than the other parties which is 
   practically a definition of biased journalism.  On the other hand if
   they make disclaimers that the LP is a tiny party with almost no 
   following they can be accused of slamming or at least biasing their
   listeners *against* the LP.   It's lose-lose for an "objective"
   journalist.

   I don't listen to a lot of broadcast journalism.  I don't watch TV at
   all and since my car radio was stolen a while back I don't listen to
   much radio.  But occasionally I listen to "All Things Considered" on
   NPR while making dinner.  And I would have to say that they have a bias 
   against the Republicans.  It's not that they seem to lie outright or 
   leave out major things about the GOP's positions; it's more subtle (and
   it might just be my imagination) but it seems like their attempts to 
   provide "balance" are somehow half-hearted and that whenever they say
   something good about the GOP they seem much quicker to qualify it.  
   Now maybe I'm just imagining this, or maybe it's objectively true,
   i.e., that the good things about the GOP's positions or actions *really
   are* more doubtful, questionable, or qualifiable. 

   
---peter
  
   
   

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4280 alt.rush-limbaugh:4331