From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:14:30 GMT

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
 
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>>Great knee-jerk!  All I asked you to do was listen.  I made a point of
>>it myself last night (NBC news).  When the topic came up, the Pro-Lifers
>>were called Anti-Abortionists.  This is certainly not always the case,
>>but it happens MUCH more  often than you will hear "Pro-Abortion" used.
>>Apart from my own personal observations, I have some stats from a few
>>years ago to back the claim up. I can post them tomorrow if you have to
>>see them.

>WHO referred to the Pro-lifers as anti-abortionists? Tom Brokaw? The
>correspondent reporting the story? Or maybe someone who was interviewed?
>I don't know. I rarely have watched NBS news since Huntley-Brinkley
>retired. 

It makes no difference who said it.  The news is constructed from the 
anchorperson on down.  Editors decide which of the interviews and exactly 
which parts of the interview are are actually shown.  Add to that which 
pictures are shown and you see that the editors and writers have complete 
control over the broadcast--no matter who is speaking.  (No conspiracy, just
editing...)

>>As to whether you think the tag is a good choice or not, who cares?  I
>>personally believe both sides' choice of labels are a bit of indirection
>>from the issue.  That isn't the debate though, is it?  The point is that
>>labels are everything in politics and sound bites.  They form a
>>subconcious impression when used over and over.  That's why both sides
>>of most all issues prefer a positive spin to their names.  And more
>>often than not, the media accepts without modification the choice of a
>>liberal organization's name, but seems to believe that the public should
>>be protected from a conservative generated label.  The fact that most
>>people never notice is all the more alarming.  (Again, specific instances
>>to follow tomorrow.)
 
>Who cares? Well, the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers seem to care.

Read it again.  Whether or not *you* think the tag is a good one is what
nobody cares about (in the context of whether or not the media uses them).
 
>Sure, you can probably come up with several news reports which back up your
>claims. If you're listening for them, you'll hear them. If I had really
>felt that there was such a bias in the reporting of the abortion debate,
>I would have been able to probably produce just as many news reports which
>did NOT refer to the pro-lifers are anti-abortionists. Therefore, your
>specific instances will not mean all that much to me.

The following information is from the Media Research Center[1], a conservative
organization trying to prove many of the things I have been saying.  Please
don't automatically reject the information simply because it's from a right-
wing group.  That doesn't make the information any less correct--just more
suspect.  I certainly do not discount everything I hear on the evening news
or in my local newspaper simply because I believe the media is generally 
liberal.  Besides this information is amazingly easy ot confirm since it is
all the public domain (and I have not heard the media ever dispute it...)

During four months in 1988 (during the presidential race and after the 
Supreme Court agreed to hear a controversial abortion case), the MRC reviewed
all stories that discussed abortion aired on NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN primetime
news shows.  

The media used the "pro-choice" label 97 percent of the time when referring
to the pro-abortion side of the debate.  They used the "pro-life" label just
21 percent of the time when refering to the anti-abortion side (usually 
calling them "anti-abortionists").  Again, this has nothing to do with the
validity of the two sides' choice of names--only whether or not the media
chooses to use the chosen (positively spun) label, or whether it instead 
makes the judgement that another (more accurate?) label should be used.  

Just one example.  It happens over the entire spectrum of conservative vs.
liberal news stories.  Perhaps the biggest injustice done by the media is in
constantly labeling conservative ideas or people as "right-wing", or "arch-
conservative", or some other warning to the public to watch out for the 
following idea.  They rarely use anything but the self-chosen name in reporting
on liberal ideas or people.  When was the last time you heard Ted Kennedy 
called a "radical liberal", or "left-wing" (by the media)?


[1] _And That's The Way It Isn't, A Refference Guide To Media Bias_, MRC, 1990


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
                        
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc