Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Bias? What Bias?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 12:54:55 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <2A950AD8.15220@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
> 
> But consider this hypothetical. Assume that for sociological reasons similar to  
> the ones which make 80% of all reporters and editors Democrats, instead 80% of  
> all reporters and editors were members of the American Nazi Party.

Look at it this way. The Republicans are almost never the majority in the
House of Representatives. The Democrats usually own it. That means most people
who vote, vote Democrat. Now.....less than 50% of Americans vote. So lets say
that on a nation-wide basis - with obvious regional exceptions or not one
Republican would ever be elected - that 60% of voters vote for Democrats. Add
that figure to the 50-60% who don't vote at all - certainly not for the
Republicans, anyway. That gives you about 80% of all Americans. 
 
What you end up with a demographic profile that says that 80% of Americans
don't support the Republican/Right Wing view. They either vote Democrat - or
not at all.
 
That simple - rough cut - analysis is the best way of seeing *why* 80% - or
some similarly high percentage - do not support right wing views. Most
Americans don't, so this is simply reflected in the journalism profession.
 
What confuses the issue is that the Republicans have support in the Congress
and the Senate completely out of proportion with the *real* support they have
in the country as a whole - including non-voters. A more democratic voting
system would give voters more choice. Look how desperate people were to back
Ross Perot! All they want is more choice - but the present US system denies
this choice to voters and preserves power for the two blocs who currently swap
it periodically.

> All you said above about bias would still be true. But you would quite likely  
> be calling for laws to fix this situation, demand that the government fund  
> papers with different points of view, require that all news papers hire  
> reporters whose political affiliation represents the general population aso.
> 
> Now most people who've argued on the same side as I have on this issue are  
> temperamentally disinclined to solve all problems of the world by the use of  
> legislation, so we don't call for anything like that.
>
> All we ask is that the general public be aware of the fact that most
> reporters and editors in the mainstream and quality media are clearly
> to the left of most of their readers
                 ^^^^
This is an amazing assertion. How do you know this? I would think this would
be a very difficult thing to determine. I wouldn't base my argument on this
point if i were you. The evidence suggests otherwise, as I have out lined
above. 
  
> and that they are not above letting their political views color their  
> putatively "objective", "factual" reporting of news stories. Is that so much to  
> ask ?

But they are only doing their jobs in doing exactly that. You won't get 
"unbiased" information form Bush or Clinton. You won't get it from the media,
either. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE REALITY. At least, I have never read nor seen
one. 

The most you can do is ask people to honestly and with integrity report the
way they saw it. Attempts to deliberately manipulate are not to be tolerated.
But you can't fault someone for saying what they really think. 

Steve
 
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: alt.news-media