From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:06:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu's message of 18 Nov 92 18:41:31 -0400

In article <1eegqrINNg3a@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>
jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes, quoting me:
>>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.
>
>I agree that *media bias* exists--a definite conservative bias.  Look at 
>the coverage we were offered leading up to and during the Gulf War.  I am
>aware of several anti-war rallies held in New Haven which the local and 
>national media refused to air.  All we got was anti-Saddam propaganda 
>designed to hype us for the war.  It was pathetic, and if you think a
>liberal bias produced the pandering to Bush the networks and newspapers
>called news, then you have a very selective memory.

I don't think my memory is particularly selective, and I have an
alternative explanation for this example.  (Certainly *any*
explanation is going to be more plausible than this idea that the
major networks are bastions of conservatism.  A quick glance at Peter
Jennings' "Person of the Week" fluff piece, or at Dan Rather's
"interview" with George Bush will confirm the silliness of that
proposition.)

My #1 complaint against the American media ("bias" is only #2) is
their utter spinelessness, as evidenced by your example.  Anything
that requires the slightest bit of guts is beyond them.  The reporting
in Nicaragua during the 1980's, for example, was done almost
exclusively by reporters sitting around the hotel waiting for the next
press release to be issued so that they could print it.

As for the Gulf War, I personally saw substantial coverage of anti-war
protests, not to mention full coverage of the congressional hearings
on the subject, which included testimony advising against war and for
the continued sanctions.  I remember seeing Ross Perot railing against
the possibility of war (and George Bush and his foreign policy in
general) several times in early January.  So your pet protest wasn't
aired?  Big deal, none of my personal friends were on TV, either.
(Well, except for one of the POW's.)

It takes a LOT of guts to criticize a war effort while it's underway
(and I'm not entirely convinced of the wisdom of doing so, absent
gross political misconduct--there's a case to be made for saving
recriminations until the hostilities are over).  The American
journalism "profession" doesn't have, collectively, 1% of the guts
required for a task like that.

But we seem to agree that the media was gutless.  They were
manipulated heavily during the Gulf War, but they also went along
pretty complacently for the sake of getting the story.  (I don't even
object to a great deal of the "manipulation"--the news media in the
post-Vietnam era has been remarkably lax in its attitude toward
legitimate military security concerns, and proved this once again in
the Gulf War by airing time-critical Scud targeting information in
real-time.)

>If you don't like that example, then look at abortion.  Almost no TV
>show mentions the word, even if the plot includes one.  I see "Life,
>what a beautiful choice" ads several times a day, but I have *never* seen
>a commercial offering abortion services.  If that is not a conservative
>bias, what is?

This phobia about the word "abortion" is hardly an invention of the
Right.  Where do you think "pro-choice" came from?  In fact, it has
been my experience that the anti-abortion types have been far readier
to use the word than the pro-abortion types (I refuse to indulge in
the double hypocrisy of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and use these
labels because they stick closer to the issue).

One of those DeMoss Foundation ads you mention *does* use the word,
anyway.  Not that that demonstrates a bias either way.  (It may be of
interest to note that the only time I saw that one was on a cable
channel.)

Do you really believe that networks are accepting these ads and
refusing "abortion services" ads?  Who are these clinics that are
trying to advertise and being rebuffed?  How come we've never heard
any complaints?  Besides, who could possibly be *against* the DeMoss
commercials?  After all, they don't advocate interfering with abortion
rights.  They merely promote the alternatives, which even Kate
Michelman claims to support.

>Also, people like George Will, Pat Robertson, Bill Buckley, Pat Buchanan,
>William Safire, John Sununu, David Gergen, David Brinkley, etc. have quite
>an impact on the media--they all contribute to the conservative bias.

George Will is ABC's caricature of a conservative.  He's a Bush-hating
Rebublican, to be sure (and that makes him close to OK in my book),
but he's way too fuzzy on the proper role of a government in a free
society to be a True Believer.  I'll grant that he's right of center.

Pat Robertson falls into the category of "televangelist," of which we
have no real shortage in America.  His level of influence in what *I*,
at least, think of as "the media" is negligible.  (Take a look at what
happened to his recent radio acquisition here in the Washington area.)

William F. Buckley, John Sununu and Pat Buchanan all occupy extremely
specialized niches in the media.  In every case (even Buckley's own
"Firing Line"), they are paired off with their liberal opposite
numbers.

The same is true for David Gergen.  Also, see "George Will," above,
substituting "MacNeil-Lehrer" for "ABC."

William Safire is not regarded as particularly conservative and in
fact voted for Clinton.

And if you consider David Brinkley a "conservative," then I think I
see the source of your proposition that the media are "conservative" 
. . .

ALL of the people you name (save Robertson) are introduced in *every*
case as a conservative, and nearly always balanced out by someone of
the opposite persuasion.  What I want to know is, where's the similar
truth in advertising and balance for Dan Rather, David Broder, Peter
Jennings, Charlayne Hunter-Galt, Bryant Gumbel, Phil Donahue, etc.,
etc. and, yes, David Brinkley?  (Ha ha, get it?  "Save Robertson"?)

>Clinton is extremely conservative for a Democrat;

The jury's still out on this one.  He sure could talk the talk, though.

>Bush angered conservatives and acted like a fool during the election.
>That is why the conservative bias was of no help to George Bush,
>latest victim of the nationwide trend of restructuring.

From a conservative perspective, George Bush has acted like a fool
roughly since the 1976 Republican primary.  Boy, it's a relief to have
the election over and to be able to say that publicly, without the
Hatch Act hanging over my head.
--
 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame