Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 15:07:32 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Here follows my response to Chip:

You seem somehow bothered that I suggested reporters are actually
"libertarian" rather than "liberal."  I'm not quite sure why you felt this
was such a massive attempt at rhetorical victory for reporters, but I will
answer it anyway.  Most polls have found reporters NOT to be sympathetic to
economic regulations, despite the liberal proclivity to "tax and spend."
In general, academics have had a hard time explaining this discrepency.
The main poll I had in mind was in "The Media Elite" by Lichtman et.al.
It is a conservative book based on the argument that the MEDIA HAS A
LIBERAL BIAS.  Nonetheless, they find what I claim as regards economic
regulation.  I cannot answer to your specific LA Times poll and its finding
regarding "business regulation" other than to say that it is rare.  As to
gun control and affirmative action, I never made any claims as to these
issues; I would expect journalists to be "liberal" on these.  I stress that
the "libertarian" label is just an attempt to portray journalistic biases
more accurately; just because it is better than "liberal" doesn't mean it
is more accurate.  If you are interested, the Lichtman study ultimately
decides that reporters are liberal in the turn-of-the-century Progressive
reformer sense rather than a New Deal sense, a conclusion I support on
its academic merits.  Therefore the political model of a reporter would not
be Bill Clinton or Mike Dukakis, it would be William Weld ("liberal"
Republican governor of MASS).

You scoff that, when I say reporters are relatively no more liberal than
other professionals, I am merely comparing liberals to liberals.  If you
were more interested in understanding what I had to say and less in making
rhetorical points, you might have read my passage more closely.  I wasn't
attempting to suggest reporters weren't liberal, only that their liberality
isn't surprising -- it matches what is found in other related fields.

I cannot answer to your skepticism regarding the Republican endorsement
tendencies of the nation's newspapers, since that is a commonly known
fact among people who study this topic regardless of political persuasion
(i.e. it has never been disputed).  One thing I didn't mention, but
will now, is that you have a rebuttal to this statistic, which is that it
doesn't take into account the circulations of the different newspapers.
Therefore the NY Times endorsement of Clinton will count equally to
the Meridien MS paper's endorsement of Bush.  If you only read big-city
Northeastern papers, you have a skewed impression of what editorial
pages write.  In 1988, only one of the eight biggest newspapers in
Louisiana endorsed Dukakis, for example (and that paper has since gone
out of business).  I worked for Gannett News Service in 1988; when
Gannett broke down their own newspapers' endorsements they found that
55% endorsed Bush, 45% Dukakis (very very close to what the population
actually voted).

You call both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" blatant propaganda.  I agree.
But "pro-abortion" also is flat-out wrong for many of the people who
oppose government regulation of the abortion procedure (especially
pro-choice Catholics).  Given the need to choose a propagandistic
label, I chose the accurate one.  On the other hand, what's wrong
with "anti-abortion"???  Do you claim not to be both "pro-life" and
"anti-abortion"?  The only reason anti-abortion is a problem for activists
is that it uses "anti" rather than "pro" and some people feel it gives
a "negative" image.  By the way, when I covered the School Choice movement,
I did refer to them as the Choice Movement in articles relating to
education reform, despite the fact this is a "conservative" position and
its adherents of course don't support "choice" on every political issue.
And if the opponents tried to call themselves "pro-education" or something
equally ridiculous (on par with pro-life) that implied their enemies
were "anti-education" I would have rejected that too.

You think you are so perceptive as to bias, but I'm afraid the only thing
you are good at is jumping to conclusions.  Despite all of the "evidence"
you found in my post that proved my "liberal" bias, the following things
are true about my political opinions:
1) I voted Republican last time I went to the polls (governor of LA, state
senator, secretary of state, attorney general, state representative, etc.)
2) I recently worked as a consultant for the Republican Party of New
York helping them try to defeat in court a blatant gerrymander developed
by the state's Democratic Party.
3) I have been offerred a job working for either Jack Kemp or Dick
Cheney in 1996 if the law firm with which I work gets the account,
and have tentatively accepted.
4) Those who know me here joke about me being the "conservative" member
of the American studies department.  The only reason this is a joke is
that the department has other "conservative" members.

Maybe you are the one who should question your rock-solid opinions and
judgmental demeanor.

Steve
 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3959 alt.activism.d:2881 alt.news-media:992