NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/newsmed/1646

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 6.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!niepornt
From: [e-mail] (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias? YOU Decide. Resumes Tell All
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:47:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 112
Originator: news@nimaster
Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>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

First of all, assuming this pro-Clinton bias existed, that *would* be
centrist bias.  Liberal bias would be pro-Jesse Jackson or maybe Jerry
Brown.

>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.

You have an odd definition of major media, then.

>(We *were* constantly reminded of the famous "read my lips" statement on the

Hey, it was George Bush from 1988-1990 who brought it up ALL the time.
Then it was Pat Buchanan who made it the centerpiece of his campaign this
year.

>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

Concrete evidence of *what*?  Other than that people will do anything if
a tabloid pays them $25k.  Especially since she wouldn't let anyone
examine them to see if they were tampered with.

>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.

I admit, I don't know.  Who's Charlotte Perry?

As for sons of George Bush, you *rarely* in the mainstream media saw
ANYTHING about the scandals involving each of Bush's children.  From
Harken Oil to Silverado S&L, these things were ignored during the
campaign.

>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

First of all, while not all Clinton supporters were so careful, Clinton
was.  What he said was not "the worst economy in 50 years," but the
SLOWEST GROWTH in 50 years.  Which *IS* true.

>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 didn't invent the figure (which was BILLION, not million) but he
invented everything else about it.  Gore NEVER called for the US to
spend that money; in fact, he specifically said most would have to come
from our allies because we couldn't afford it.

>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.

What an interesting survey, since the one released the other day showed
that *44%* of the media were Democrats.  (With ~30% being independent,
and the rest Republican.)

--
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.