From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Another was Re: Conservative bias example
Organization: ILS
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:28:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.215724.43349@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep21.192746.27036@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
> 
> [...]
> > 
> > I propose three tests that would prove liberal bias,  if anyone can show
> > that these three conditions are true I would be willing to except that the
> > press is Liberal biased;
> > 
> > 1.  That there is a  group of persons who control the content of the entire
> > news that the majority of Americans get and that other people or
> > organizations can not effect the decisions of these people.  In other words
> > the Media to be biased by a certain group must be controlled by that group,
> >  this Media to be effective must not be regularly contradicted or its
> > content effected from outside.
> > 	
> > Even if most reporters and writers are pro-Clinton you still have to show
> > that they control the content of the news and that the President, PR firms,
> > Spin Doctors, Companies, Lawyer etc do not have an input into the news
> > content.  That is the people who run the press must be shown to control its
> > content.  
> 
> Preposterous!  

Thank you

>You don't have to prove a conspiracy to argue for media
> bias.  You don't have to prove a conspiracy to argue for any bias.
> Most academics are biased toward Liberal causes, as one can hear in
> any classroom, but there is no centralized network of plotters to
> bring this about.  

A conspiracy is an effort by two or more people to break the law.  I said
nothing about a conspiracy.

I never asserted that the group that controlled the media must coordinate
or even communicate in any way,  just that they must as a group, either
together or seperate control the content of the press.   

Even if most reporters are pro-Clinton that does not mean that they can not
be controlled to report something or not something by outside groups.  For
example I bet most reporters voted for Dukakis in '88,  but the Bush team
was able to so skillfully influence the media that the news made Dukakis
look like a shit head. 

Another example in different direction is the recent movie JFK.  Reporters
for NYT and the Wash. Post were about to publish stories before the movie
came out picturing it as an idiotic twisting of the facts.  Oliver Stone
hired a PR firm to control the press coverage.

The PR firm gain some positive press for something as stupid as Olivers
theories on JFK's death.

To assert that the media is biased,  does not mean that reporters are
biased,  the media is more then just reporters,  it is what we see on TV
and read in the papers (radio does not count worth shit).  What we see on
TV is the product of many groups;  business men, PR firms, political
parties etc.


> 
> The problem with the media is always the same: in their better moments
> responsible newspeople *usually* admit that media people have a general
> pro-Liberal bias, *but* -- they hasten to add - "it doesn't affect our
> reporting."  (You heard this yet again a few weeks ago on Ted Koppel's
> _Viewpoiont_ )  What it boils down to is that the media are asking us
> for a blank check: we're supposed to grant them a purity of motive
> that we would grant no other group with comparable power.

Really,  well I doubt everything I watch I TV myself.  But I think the
people that work for the networks are only on esource of bias.

I would also grant to you that the press is beating up on Bush right now, 
but that is probably more selling there coverage to a population that
generaly is sick of the man.  In 1980 this press ate Carter alive.  In 1988
they ate Dukakais.  In fact this is the same press that has been eating
CLinton up alive duirng the Primary and now with the draft dodging issue.

> 
> > 2.  This group that controls the press must be commited to the promotion of
> > rule by liberals in the Democratic party.
> 
> No knowledgeable person believes that a single group controls the
> press.

Then any reasonable person must question the idea of media bias.  Unless
you assert that the content of the news is determined by many groups almost
all of which are biased.

Probably the man with the greatest effect on what you see on the news is
the President of the United States,  over the past year and a half Bush has
been weak,  he has not controlled the Press core with the skill that Reagan
or Nixon showed in there first terms.  The wild beasts without a master
have come under the influence of other big men, one of which have been
CLintons spin doctores.


> 
> > 3.  This political commitment or bias must effect their content decisions.
> 
> It does, and it's documented, but no one pays any attention.  Edith
> Effron, who claimed she wasn't a Conservative, did a content analysis
> of the Nixon campaign coverage which was methodologically impeccable.
> She was on about three talk shows and then forgotten.
 

For those who assert clear press bias (one study from one election is not
enought) a bibliography might help.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton