NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/newsmed/1643

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 5.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!spcvxb!hsh!paul
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias? YOU Decide. Resumes Tell All
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:04:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <tufnel.722113859@camelot>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: HSH Associates
Lines: 93

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
> [...]
>>"Corporations" still control the major media, but what types?  Increasingly,
>>it's *media* and/or *entertainment* corporations.  What is the primary business
>>avenue for Ted Turner's empire?  Or Disney, Columbia, Gannett, The New York
>>Times Company, Time-Warner, etc?  And increasingly, the "news" department at
>>the networks is overseen more by the entertainment division (the movie
>>'Network' was ahead of its time in that respect).
>>
>>Many media outlets are, to be sure, still used as mouthpieces by their
>>owners... so it IS worthwhile to ask what axes those owners have to grind.  In
>>Turner's case, it is all too apparent (IMHO, he hastened to add).
>>Unfortunately, as the ownership shifts to entertainment/media corporations,
>>there are fewer independent, unfettered reporters remaining to ask these
>>questions.
>>
>     Here I must agree.  I think the centrist bias of most commercial news
> media derives largely from their ownership by those entertainment corporations.
> Ideas or voices that are regarded as "extreme" or "controversial" tend to be
> avoided for fear of boycotts, withdrawl of sponsorship, and other nasty
> economic consequences.
>     Which is why I don't get my news from commercial media.

We agree on all points... except for labelling it 'centrist' bias.  Its
admittedly depend upon one's viewpoint, but there's a lot of "reporting" that I
find ideologically filtered for our viewing pleasure.  So much of the "news" we
are treated to *looks* like the whole truth -- that's the idea -- but is
carefully, ideologically screened.  Consider Clinton's draft-dodging tale.  All
that an enterprising journalist had to do was compare Clinton's own statements
over a few months; very few did, and the major media refused to pick up on it.
(We *were* constantly reminded of the famous "read my lips" statement on the
nightly news.)  In addition, the most damaging portions of Clinton's
draft-dodging (the Governor's intervention, particularly) went unreported by
the networks and by practically every paper and newsmagazine.  The Flowers
tapes were dismissed, despite being concrete evidence.  The Charlotte Perry
story -- grist for ANY journalistic go-for-blood mill -- was completely
ignored.  Even now, I'd wager that many of you reading this (and those who
depend upon the network news) don't have a clue what that's about.  I would
further wager that, if a son of George Bush had been involved in such a
scandal, Ms Perry would be touring the lecture circuit now.

The fact is that Clinton's assertions on "the worst economy in 50 years" could
have been flatly contradicted by any Joe Reporter with a dime-store almanac.
Why did the media take these statements at face value?  The so-called 'media
truth squads' tore Bush's statements apart, while completely ignoring this and
other Clinton prevarications; the Wall Street Journal *did* consult an almanac,
and promptly labelled it "the worst lying about the economy in 50 years."  Some
attention was paid to Quayle's charge that Gore's book called for $100 million
in environmental spending.  Gore denied it, and the media bought it -- but
those who read the book know that Quayle didn't invent that figure.  In fact,
Quayle offered proof to the media of all of the charges he made against Gore --
where did it appear?  (A rhetorical question, indeed.)  Larry King successfully
ambushed Bush on his show by giving Clinton's communications director a private
line to call in on -- and then denied it, even as his producer admitted it.
The capper, of course, were the 'landslide' headlines so prevalent a few weeks
ago.

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek forecast that the media would "give Clinton a break,"
and she was absolutely right.  One survey reported that 80% of the journalists
employed by the national media were registered Democrats.  (That's "survey," as
in, the participants were *asked*.)  Even Mickey Kaus (sp?), of the New
Republic -- and a steadfast Clinton supporter -- admitted to being embarassed
by the media's obvious support for him.

I reckon that this tirade will spark several replies from other readers.  Some
of them may even contain more light than flames, and some may even attempt to
selectively rebut a few of these examples.  (Fair warning: *thoughtful* posts
to *only* this newsgroup may receive a followup.  I will not reply to email
flames -- life's too short.)

But that's enough for now.  I suppose, Chuck, that on this aspect, for the time
being, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Time for me to pack it in.  "Back
to the freeway, which is already in progress!" <G>


>>"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
>>relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..."
> "At Fourth and Drucker he turns left.  At Drucker and Fourth he turns right.
> He crosses McArthur Park and walks into a great sandstone building.
> <smack> <"Ouch, my nose!">"
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                Hey.... SOMEbody remembers!

------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          [phone] | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: [e-mail]   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."

"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..."