From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:53:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu's message of 18 Nov 92 12:46:21 -0400

[Distribution slightly modified.  Edit the header if you don't like.]

In article <1992Nov18.164621.10514@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes, quoting mpye@netcom.com
(Michael Pye):
>>Sorry, but when the editor of the New Republic openly admits that the
>>magazine is biased towards a particular person, that there are
>>definately un-truths printed supporting this bias, and that it's up to
>>the reader to sort fact from fiction - yes - it sure sounds like
>>they're conspiring.
>
>Yes, the New Republic endorsed Clinton.  But they also printed pro-Perot
>articles by John Judis.

. . . and no one has maintained that "The New Republic" ought to be
held to standards of objectivity, since they don't claim objectivity.
Like "National Review" and "The Nation," TNR is a journal of opinion.
That wouldn't excuse them if they were making things up and presenting
them as fact, but that's not what has been alleged here.

Neither is it what conservatives complain about when they talk about
"media bias."  I've never seen an analysis or accusation of such bias
(which I firmly believe exists in several major news organizations)
that included "biased" statements made by such journals of opinion.

Formal editorial endorsement of a candidate doesn't invalidate a news
organization's objectivity (theoretically, anyway--it might cast
suspicion).  When TNR endorses Clinton and then goes on to report only
things favorable about Clinton/Perot and unfavorable about Bush, I
don't care--the magazine is essentially full of op-ed pieces.  When NR
("National Review") does the reverse (though their endorsement of Bush
was a bit backhanded), I don't care either, for the same reason.

When the Washington "Post" (just to pick an example I'm familiar with
personally) does this, though (and they do), it is an outrage.  The
most recent example of this is one of their "News Analysis" pieces on
the front page that said, in effect, "Now that the election is over,
we can all admit that the economy isn't *that* bad, and Clinton's
proposals may be modified to fit the reality instead of the rhetoric."

Of course they have a right to say whatever they want, seeing as how
they own the printing presses and all, but it's pretty hypocritical of
them to pull this when they maintain that their main function is to
*help* us, the citizenry, separate the reality from the rhetoric.  (To
their credit, the Post's own ombudsman acknowledges that Bush received
far more negative coverage in the later stages of the campaign than
Clinton did, and that the Post's "fact-checkers" were more aggressive
in "exposing" inaccuracies in Bush campaign ads than those in Clinton
ads.)

Also, "USA Today" reports that it checked the 1988 post-election
newspapers and not one called Bush's victory a "landslide."  An
exercise for the reader:  find five news organizations that called
Clinton's plurality a "landslide" (for partial credit, use "electoral
landslide") this year.  In a good library, it should take you about
ten minutes.

The point of all this is that I don't think conservative complaints
about media bias are imagined.  However, Michael Pye's attack on TNR
on this score are misplaced.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24090 alt.politics.marrou:2333 talk.politics.misc:60738 alt.politics.clinton:17410