From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:05:53 GMT
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <1992Sep8.211510.328@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator) writes:

>>Just because a paper chooses to run conservative columns (presumably
>>in the name of "balance") doesn't mean it is conservative.  Take the
>>LA Times for example.  The Oregonian announced at the beginning of the
>>year that they would no longer use the names of the Atlanta Braves or
>>Cleveland Indians (and this will probably or already has expand to the
>>Washington Redskins, KC Chiefs, and many college teams) in print ever.
>>Sounds like a real conservative position to me.

>You can presume the Oregonian runs conservative columns for balance if
>you want -- I'm sure that's their excuse.  The problem is they have a
>peculiar idea of balance: heavy on the Right.  So, apparently, do you,
>if the fact that the Oregonian chose to eschew a few team names
>convinces you that the newspaper is "liberal".  That's quite a scale

Having never read the Oregonian, I cannot say whether the editorials
are balanced.  But, the fact that the Oregonian would choose to act on
the complaints of the PC crowd tells me it isn't a true conservative
paper either.

>you've developed!  If you don't think the editorial page (which reflects
>the ideas of the editorial _board_) is an accurate reflection of the
>paper's editorial bias, perhaps you could educate the rest of the world.

I do not believe the editorial page is the only criterion to consider.
Take the LA Times for example.  I have found their Opinion section to
be more-or-less balanced, probably about 60-40.  Nevertheless, the
paper, on the whole, is left-wing.  I look at the reporting.  How much
editorializing is being passed off as fact in the news section?  And
how much balance is given to "hot-button" issues, particularly
abortion and gun control?

Almost every time, pro-lifers have a rally, the media takes it upon
itself "in the name of balance" to ask a prominent member of the other
side, usually Faye Wattleton, Kate Michelman, or locally Robin
Schindler.  The test is do they do the same in the other direction?
When pro-choicers have a rally, how often does the story mention the
other side, or better yet, quote the other side?  With the LA Times,
it is rare; with the OC Register, it is almost always; with the San
Diego Union-Tribune (which is my bellwether for balanced [about
55R-45L] in terms of reporting, not editorials) it's about 60-70%.

When the Casey decision was announced, whose side was given first?
(Both didn't like it, but whose name appeared first in the article?)
The Register quoted someone from National Right to Life Committee
first; the Times quoted Patricia Ireland of NOW; the Union-Tribune
quoted Michelman.

This same criterion can apply to gun control.  Which side is portrayed
in the more positive light?

Again, having never read the Oregonian, I cannot say.  But, I would
hazard a guess that The Oregonian probably tilts to the left on at
least one of these two issues.

>What happened to the fact that the Oregonian has consistently endorsed
>conservative Republican presidential candidates for decades?  That has
>nothing to do with their bias?

Of course it does.  Everything does.  But, I'm still only giving you
balanced, maybe about 60R-40L since editorials weigh in heavily.

>>>As far as liberal San Francisco goes, you ever hear of William Randolph
>>>Hearst?

>>Oh what a great example.  A dead man from the 40's.  Well, SF has
>>changed a great deal since Hearst's time.  SF, Marin, and Alameda
>>Counties are left-wing hotbeds.  They brought us leftist icons like
>>Willie Brown, "Red" Ron Dellums, the very dead (hurrah) Phil Burton,
>>and Barbara Bouncer.  And reflectings its community, the SF Chronicle
>>is very left.

>Excuuuuuuuuuse me, but I must have dropped the Jr from Hearst's name.
>Hearst, _Jr._ is the editor in chief of the Hearst Newspapers (ring a

Well then, I'll give you that, but I don't keep pace with SF figures.
And I still contend that no paper in SF can afford to be conservative
unless its aiming at minority status.  Newspapers reflect their
communities, at least if they want to claim they adequately represent
them.  The closest you'll get to "conservative" in SF/Marin/
Berserkeley is balanced, and that's a stretch.

>>Left-wing papers on the "Left Coast":  LA Times, SF Chronicle,
>>Oregonian, Sacramento Bee, the former San Diego Tribune, and probably
>>the Seattle paper

I'll drop The Oregonian.

>Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. The Sacramento Bee?  Hee hee!  But I guess to some

Maybe, I meant the Union but I doubt it.  The Sacramento papers are
based on the opinions of a friend who grew up there.  Basically, the
"big paper" is on the left, and the smaller one is on the right.

>>Compare name recognition with:  OC Register, LA Daily News, Sacramento
>>Union, and the former San Diego Union.

>>With the exception of the SD Union (which no longer exists), all the
>>conservative papers are viewed as "second-string" counterparts.  The
>>national media still treats OC as an LA "suburb gone wrong," although
>>it is starting to come around.  Until recently, the Register was
>>almost always mentioned in the same breath as the Manchester Union Leader.

>Just out of curiosity, who views them as "second-string" -- and maybe

I use the term "second-string" to refer to quantity of sales and name
recognition.  The OC Register has large name recognition, but it's
mostly negative.  The perception is that the only reason it survives
against the larger and more well-known Times is that it is a "local
paper".  This is patently false.  Register coverage is comparable (in
terms of quantity and writing quality not slant) to other big market
papers, like the Atlanta Constitution or the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The LA Daily News is worse off.  Without a regional base to fall back
on, like the Register, the Daily News relies largely on a niche
market.  How can you compete against the prestige of the LA Times in
its own backyard?  Consequently, the Daily News makes no attempt to
match Times coverage because it's not worth their while.  This, of
course, means the Daily News will forever be a "second string" paper.

The Sacramento Union I am not sure of.  As I understand it, Sacramento
is pretty much a two-paper city.  The Bee has more sales than the
Union.  The way my friend tells it, it sounds like the only reason the
Bee sells more is it has a better comics page.  The point here is that
"second string" applied to the Union should not be construed the same as
when it is applied to the Daily News.

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4672 alt.news-media:1276 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3637