From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Summary: It is well documented, references given below
Keywords: bias
Date: 19 Jul 92 16:54:18 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

[My apologies to the NET for not responding sooner, but I haven't had
time (to even read the NEWS, little less to respond to it).  Don't
equate silence with not having a ready, but considered answer.]

In article <1992Jul10.163605.9342@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu
(Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <1012@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>
>>	Left <-------------------------|-------------------------> Right
>>	       A            B          C              D         E
>>
>>Let's say for the sake of argument that we can plot political thinking
>>a long a line with a center "C".*  As I'm sure most "progressive" (for
>>lack of a better term) activists would agree, the center of political
>>thought in the U.S.A. is no where near C.  It is somewhere well to the
>>right of that, let's say, D.  It is a well documented fact that the
>>majority of the people of the press and media are to the left of D,
>>between B and D.  They try to write as if they were D, and sometimes
>>they succeed, but often they don't.  AIM looks at this from E, and they
>>say the press is biased to the left (of D).  FAIR looks at the same
>>thing, and says the press is biased (way) to the right (of themselves,
>>around B).  Both are correct.
>
>	This is a great article, I gotta say. I even read it twice, to make 
>sure that I understood it. Here's how it works:
>
>	Premise: the media are at point C, on the chart.

You read it twice, but you still didn't get it right . . . read it
again; I said the media is to the left of D, which is different than saying
they are at C.

>	Premise: the public is at point D on the chart.

This is true by definition: D is defined as the center of political
thought in the U.S.  You can argue about where it is in relation to C,
the center of political thought more generally, but there does seem to
be general agreement, especially among the left, that D is to the right
of C.  If you are having trouble with the scale or the distance between
particular points, you are missing the point.  There is no scale and the
number of dashes between points is meaningless.

>	Evidence: "It is well documented"

What is well documented is that the members of the media and their
reporting are well to the left of D (the center in the U.S.).

...
>	Perfect logic: it sounds like an argument, and it's very difficult
>to refute, therefore it must be true, right? In fact, it's extremely difficult
>to refute, because it makes no pretense to justify the premise, and the
>(unstated) conclusion that media is left leaning. There is some anecdotal
>Evidence but it doesn't matter since none of it is used to support the
>conclusion.In the end, you can argue this post all day, and you'll
>never show that the press is not left leaning, because it's a given.
>
>	Ironically, the "Well documented" comment is inadvertently circular,
>since it is based on Evidence from FAIR, which is presented as being biased
>relative to the conclusion -- the result is that if you accept that FAIR is
>a reasonable source, based in the given argument, then the premise is correct
>and therefore the argument is correct and FAIR is a reasonable source. Cool.

Nonsense.  Nothing in my argument is based on anything from FAIR. 
Their existence is used to prove that both the Left and the Right
complain about bias and I vaguely refer to their arguments as an
example of what the Left complains about.  There is no way to infer
from this that FAIR must be a correct or reasonable source in order for
my argument to be true.  In truth, I don't think they are either,
except that they are correct in saying that the media is biased to the
Right of them -- it would be silly to argue otherwise.

Moreover, there is nothing circular or illogical about my argument if I had
included references, as I normally do.  The only reason I didn't in this
case is that I had planned to do that in a follow-up to another post, but
so far, I haven't had time to do that.  I have provided references on this
subject, in this group, in the last year.

The best single source for information on media bias is: "And That's the
Way It Isn't: a reference guide to media bias", by L. B. Bozell III & B. H.
Baker, 1990.  Before you dismiss this as a hopelessly biased source
(because Brent Bozell was involved), you should take a look.  Most of the
studies presented in the book weren't done by Bozell, and they are done as
objectively as this kind of thing can be done (by, for example, counting
the number of times certain phrases are used in all network news stories on
a certain subject, etc.).

For example, right at the start of the book is a study by S. Robert Lichter
of George Washington University and Stanley Rothman of Smith College.  They
interviewed 240 journalists and broadcasters from the most influential
media outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, Time, News Week, U.S. News & World
Report, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal,
etc.), and they found amount other things that 81% voted for McGovern in
1972 (94% for Johnson, 86% for Humphrey, and 81% for Carter in 1976).  62%
of the electorate chose Nixon.  You could argue that the people in the
media were right, but you can't argue that they reflect the opinions of
the general population.  Other studies that come to the same conclusion
have been widely publish, and I have never see these result disputed in the
media.

I submit that Leftwing media bias is so common and pervasive that you are
used to it, and you don't recognize it for what it is.  Maybe you haven't
noticed, but right now Al Gore is universally being described as a moderate
by the press and mainstream media.  Senator Gore has the lowest National
Taxpayers Union rating of anyone in the Senate this last year (i.e. he
voted for more spending than anyone else).* Ever heard Bush called a
"moderate" in the mainstream media? He has a better claim to it than
Gore.** And what about the environment?  Can you honestly call Gore a
moderate there?  Compared to EF! perhaps he is.  Certainly he isn't when
compared to the rest of the Senate.  Gore is a year younger than Dan Quayle
and has less experience in Congress.  Have you heard anyone in the
mainstream media question his qualifications to be VP?  He certainly isn't
treated as Quayle is.

When was the the last time you heard a liberal described in the major media
as "extreme", "arch", "hardcore", or "ultra".  I can't say that I ever
have, yet such labels commonly get applied to conservatives, like Reagan,
who apparently aren't so extreme that they can't win elections by wide
margins.  Liberals frequently aren't labeled at all, even as liberals.  The
same can't be said of conservatives.

Consider the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings: About 70% of the general
population (even when broken down by race, or sex) believed Thomas and
thought he should be confirmed.  Yet during the hearings, the "experts" and
commentators on the networks and PBS who favored Thomas were outnumbered by
those who didn't by three to one.

Let's go on to some "facts" reported by the press.  We all have been told,
over and other again for years that there is scientific consensus that we
face disastrous global warming due to the build up of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, and we must act soon to correct the situation.  In fact
there is no such consensus.  Until recently no one even bothered to ask
scientists in the field what they thought.  Several surveys have been done
recently, some by environmental groups, and they all show that there is no
consensus, and that there is still considerable doubt and debate about the
matter.  This has been reported in "Reason" and "National Review" and Rush
Limbaugh, but has not been well covered by the mainstream media.  We've all
be told over and over that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer
during the Reagan years.  It isn't true.  The rich got richer all right,
but so did the poor.[1]

The the members of the media are not generally leftwing wackos or
socialists or communists, but they certainly do not reflect the general
population, but are biased to the Left of them, and it shows in their
reporting.

* He's been called a "moderate" or a "conservative" Democrat before by
the press, mainly because he tends to vote for and support defense
spending.  The truth is he votes for pretty much all spending.  

** Let's judge Bush by his actions for a moment.  He signed the largest tax
increase since WWII, defense spending has consistantly declined under Bush
(at least if you discount the cost of the Gulf War, the added cost of which
our allies have pledged more than enough to make up for -- I don't know if
they have all come through or not however), he signed a major pollution
control bill, a quota bill (the so called Civil Rights Bill), and domestic
spending has increased more per year under Bush than under any president
since WWII (averaging 9% per year real growth).  "Extreme conservative"?
Hardly.


[1] All major groups became better off during the Reagan years.  From page
447 of "Statistical Abstract of the United States 1990", mean after-tax
household income in constant (1986) Dollars:

			1980	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986
All households		21,652	21,499	22,173	22,763	23,082	23,683
Whites			22,424	22,293	23,011	23,614	23,936	24,570
Blacks			15,236	14,723	15,113	15,622	16,094	16,398
Hispanic		18,030	17,371	17,660	18,324	18,265	18,817

And this general increase in income continued through 1990.  In general,
incomes peaked in 1978 (although the tables I have didn't include '73, so
it's possible that was the peak -- in fact I think it was) and then
declined rapidly through 1982.  Because of the delay in economic effects,
those are the Carter years.

And the economic improvement was broad.  That is wasn't is a myth
perpetrated by a media fundamentally opposed to Reagan and his policies.
From the Census Bureau:

		     Average Real Income (1989 Dollars)

		     Poorest 20%	     Richest 20%
	1978	       $6,769		       $71,793
	1980		6,494			70,056
	1983		6,291			71,983
	1985		6,470			76,466
	1988		6,777			82,554
	1989		6,994			85,529

-- 
				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d