From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:46:22 GMT


dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:

>Note that the above comments apply to the partisan leanings of reporters.
>It doesn't reflect their ideological leanings at all.  In fact, both the
>polls and my own experience suggests that reporters would best be described
>as libertarian -- they generally oppose higher taxes, government spending,
>guaranteed employment, etc.  So the question becomes, why do libertarian
>reporters consistently vote Democratic.  

Are you being serious?  They consider themselves liberal, and vote
Democratic, but are really closet libertarians?  To say that reporters
in general *oppose* government intervention is puting your credibility
on the line.  Not to mention the fact that it directly contradicts the
polls you seem familiar with.  Here's just a sample from a previous
posting from the LA Times:  (Which *included* editors)

					Journalists	      Public
					-----------	      ------
Govmnt Regulation of business:  Favor	    49			22
				Oppose      41			50

Affirmative Action		Favor	    81			56
				Oppose	    14			21

Stricter handgun control 	Favor	    78			50
				Oppose	    19			41 


>May have something to do with
>their demographics.  The press is not notably liberal in relation to
>other professionals with similar backgrounds who work in fields involving
>communication or self-expression (e.g. acting, teaching, art, etc.).

Is this supposed to be funny?  You are comparing liberals
to other liberals and concluding that they aren't all that liberal,
relatively?  I am amused.

>Also, many women are journalists -- working women tend to be hostile to
>the Republican "family values" agenda.

You are certainly striking a chord of objectivity here.  Should I assume
you are holding back?

>Second, the nation's newspapers on average have endorsed the Republican
>presidential candidate every year except for 1964 (Goldwater vs. Johnson).

This is difficult for me to believe, although without some kind of 
evidence to the contrary, I will assume you're not lying about it.
I have seen very few newspapers endorse the Republican ticket.  I've
been all across this country and without exception (no matter how
objective the news stories) the OpEd page has been flaming liberal.
Would you please elaborate?  How do you reconcile this with the fact
that the press is predominantly liberal?

>Finally, since I was a political reporter in Louisiana during the abortion
>fight, I had to make a decision regarding what to call the two sides of
>the abortion debate.  I chose to use what has been called either the
>"liberal" or the "moderate" side, depending upon your point-of-view.
>That is, for the anti-abortion side I used "anti-abortion" as opposed
>to "pro-life" or "anti-choice."  This made perfect sense to me, 

And I suppose, that if the opposite made perfect sense to me, I would
be ...stupid?  What is your opinion of people who have other opinions
about things like this?  Is it your contention that since you made the
*reasoned* choice, that all others are unreasonable?  Is that an 
opinion on your part?  Could that be a form of bias?

>I've never met a pro-life person who denied that (s)he was also
>"anti-abortion," whereas very few pro-abortion folk would describe
>themselves as "anti-life" and the alternate term implies that they are.
>I can think of no argument justifying "pro-life" except
>the preference of its advocates -- which is to say, it is blatant
>propaganda.  

Face it.  Both labels are "blatent propaganda".  The fact that you 
bought into one and not the other doesn't get you any points in the
objectivity department.

>So I ended up using "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion."  I admit
>that "pro-abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion-rights" are preferable to
>this, but they also are unwieldy and never would get an editor's approval
>regardless of his or her position on the issue.  (Probably why Star Wars
>won over Strategic Defense Initiative as well, I might mention.)  

The argument gets weaker by the paragraph.  How about "Star Wars" vs.
"SDI"?  Don't try to make it sound like a technical argument--it is
completely ideological.  Accuracy should mean something to journalists.
To come up with a belittling nickname for something very serious and
then deflect responsibility for it by calling it the "so called Star
Wars program" borders on irresponsibility--far from expediency.

>to the person who argued "Well, anti-abortion people are for choice in
>some issues too, and pro-choice people oppose choice on breast implants"
>or something to that effect, I think that was a particularly knee-jerk
>response.  I don't think anyone who uses or hears "pro-choice" really
>thinks it means anything beyond the abortion issue -- it is implied and
>understood to mean pro-abortion-choice.  This isn't the same as pro-life,
>which is intended to imply that the other side is made up of a bunch of
>killers.

Now we are knee-deep in opinions.  Not even well thought out ones.  I
digress:  You don't think anyone uses "pro-choice" to mean anything 
beyond how it applies to the abortion issue, however, the "pro-life"
crowd obviously means its name to apply over a myriad of other social
issues.  Can you be objective for a moment?  Both camps chose the names
for their propaganda value.  *Both* of them.  Remove yourself from the
emotions and look at the label battle fairly.  We should be able to 
expect that from news writers.  Leave the blathering to extremists on
the net.

>Well, this has been rather long, but I hope it helps...

I am assuming you set out to be objective in this article.  And at the 
heart of my whole argument is the belief that journalists are generally
*trying* to be objective--that is something to strive for.  You struck
right about where most "objective" reporters in the media hit.  Your
bias is very evident in this article--although to you, it is simply
an intelligent opinion, it is *still* an opinion.  As long as the 
possibility exists that others will disagree with your opinions, the
task for reporters is obvious.  You have to acknowledge the fact that
you have opinions and stop making the judgement calls like you
described above.  To hold to the belief that *your* decisions with
regard to the applicability of a label are the only reasonable ones is
arrogance beyond acceptability.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh