X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:02:14 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Packwood, Inouye, Thomas, etc....
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>         So as long as he maintains his innocence, everything is ok?  LIke I
>>said, Mr. Thomas has maintained his version of what happened (or didn't) with
>>Ms. Hill, yet the press continues to BBQ him.
>
>        However, Bush has maintained a similar "innocence" regarding his
>infidelities....what's the point?  It can't work both ways....
>
>(regarding those accusations against Bush, Brett' says:)
>
>>        As soon as 10 women step forward, they will :).
>
>So, if the person denies it, and there's only a charge about _one_ woman
>, and it was consentual adultery, not forced sexual harrassment, then it's
>OK that the press has laid down and died on the story?  HUH?

        I asked why Inouye was being treated differently.  You replied that
it's because he's maintaining his innocence.  I replied just like Thomas, eh?
And you jumped in with the Bush rumors.  The "10 women" is obviously a joke,
and refers to the fact that many women have come forward to complain about
Inouye (as well as Packwood).

        So the question still remains: what's different about Inouye?  We know
the press doesn't care about the maintenance of "not guilty" stances (vis.
Thoams), so what's the deal?
        As I proposed earlier, it's a case of one's own getting caught with a
hand in the cookie jar.

>...
>Brett' demonstrates that, in fact, he knows little about newspaper and tele-
>vision news editors.  If there's a more conservative group out there, I'd sure
>like to know (the only ones that come _close_ are the publishers and owners of
>said media!).

        Our editors (Dayton Daily News) frequently spout such nonesense as:

        Reagan's tax cuts caused the recession, and the tax hikes caused the
economic boom.
        Bush had a worse economic record than Carter.
        Deficits under Reagan continually increased.
        Etc.

        If you're looking for someone more conservative, I'm sure a few here on
the list will suffice :).
        Not all journalists are "liberal" of course.  However studies have
shown that journalists are more liberal than the general population.  (ABC news
had a little piece on this a few weeks before the election.)

>Many reporters profess a personal liberal ideology.
>Few, if any, editors profess a personal liberal ideology.

        I'd have to disagree.  Editors usually come from a journalistic
background.  I doubt whether the ratio will decrease as the level of
responsibility increases.
        Our own beloved DDN is staffed almost entirely by those who would be
classified as "liberal", with nary a conservative viewpoint expressed (except
the occasional synidcated bit).

>Few, if any, publishers/media owners profess a personal liberal ideology.

        Cox Media (the people who own DDN) have a liberal bent.  They even have
all of their papers, TV stations and cartoonists (Mike Peters) coordinate their
efforts, so you get a big wave of stories and political cartoons on the same
subject.  It's choreographed to the point of looking staged to even the most
casual observer.

>Any reporter worth their salt professes _NO_ ideology within the context of
>their byline.

        Professes, yes.  Whether that objectivity gets implemented is another
story.  I'm sure Ted Koppel thought he was being objective when he did his "48
hours with the Clinton campaign", but it was merely a fluff piece where Ted
gushed on about how 1992 was so much like 1960.
        Nightline also parroted the Clinton line about trade with Mexico,
having a couple of nights worth of stories with titles like "HOW YOUR TAX
DOLLARS SEND JOBS TO MEXICO!!!!!"

>Any ideology expressed within such a context is summarily edited out.

        See above.  Those pieces were blatently pro-Clinton.

>If a charge of unprofessionalism (ie allowing personal bias to influence
>story content) may be leveled, it must be leveled at the editorial level,
>which, surprisingly, is most often conservative.

        I haven't seen any numbers to back up that claim.  ABC even admitted
that most journalists were "liberal".

>The one place (besides the editorial page) where it is permitted for a
>journalist to profess personal opinion is in a syndicated column (and in
>a local one, I guess....but who reads those? :) ).
>
>Most columnists, by recent study, who profess an ideology within the
>context of their column are quite clearly conservative.

        Numbers?  I can track down the ABC story.  Reader's Digest also has
done a few "liberal media" studies.

        What about Inouye?  What reason (that hasn't or can't be shown to
be a double standard) is there to ignore the story?  It's almost a carbon copy
of the Packwood story.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU