From: csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Man of the Year (was Re: Is the media liberal-biased)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:48:46 GMT

In article <43359@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

>Almost all photos of Clinton
>or his spouse are taken from a low angle looking up. Clinton is, of
>course, usually smiling, upbeat, arm probably extended, exuding that
>'good ol' boy' charm. Bush photos are taken with a level angle, with
>him usually grimacing or frowning. Interesting choices, but effective.

Excellent point. Most people are unaware the the absolutely HUGE number
of photos available to TIME and other such publications. The choice of
expression in such cases is NEVER accidental, although you would be
very hard pressed to prove: 1) That the choices were deliberate (you would
have to read the mind of the editor) 2) That they were aware of the
effect of the choices and 3) That the choices really had a tangible
impact on the public.

This is why the press is virtually immune from libel cases (they are
very careful) and can influence public opinion far more than they
admit to.

>About this man of the year choice. Give me a break. Clinton hasn't
>even wiped his but in the oval office head, and he is man of the year?
>He has an overriding 'mandate' with 41% of the popular vote (the same
>percentage that Dukakis lost with 4 years ago)? He has yet to take
>office, and his 'governing style' has already been compared (in a
>major article) to Lincoln?

Well, frankly, TIME bases its choice on who was most influencial in shaping
the news that year, and is not a selection of who is a good role model.
Past winners include Adolf Hitler and (I think) Joseph Stalin, hardly good
role models.

However, TIME should realize how people perceive their selection
as opposed to its stated criterion, and either begin selecting good role
models as opposed to simply news makers (but, of course, TIME would have
to show its hand (i.e. its biases) to do that) or else drop it entirely.
They claim, however, that it is a good selling point, though I think it
serves no purpose other than that if they are true to the criterion. I
mean, who cares who TIME thinks is the year's biggest news story?

I also highly question the media's love affair with Socks.  I mean, really!
No one cared about the presidential dogs unless they did something significant,
like get sick, or have its ears pulled. For God's sake, what has Socks done??

For me, however, the clearest indication of media bias was what they
considered news during the election. Did we hear anything more about Clinton's
draft dodging? Or Jennifer Flowers? No, it was all Iran-Contra and whether
Bush knew about it or not.  And I STILL think the timing of the indictment
was significant. The indictment was so full of holes it was thrown out only
three weeks later.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66977 alt.politics.elections:24830 alt.politics.clinton:20002 alt.politics.libertarian:3313