Better late than never, but I would argue the opposite happens quite a bit too- journalists spend a lot of time "digging" to find someone who disagrees and to give them some semblance of an "equal voice" even when the position they represent is laughably unequal. If Bill Clinton or George Bush say "the Earth is round", you can be sure some reporter will have the Flat Earth Society on the phone for a denunciatory quote.
I agree that the press likely has a bias because it has an "easy" (low-cost) means of getting "both sides" via official PR pronouncements, but I'm not sure that this effect is as important as that of the dynamic you describe in "objective" presentation of both sides. So long as "balance" is being sought on a particular story, it makes little difference whether the two sides represent a 50/50 or 99/1 percent distribution of actual opinion. Each is presented as equally believable. At some point, it seems rational not to give equal weight to the 1% opinion against the 99 (or possibly to not mention it at all). Yet, journalists often have it as their stated goal to seek and give voice to minority opinions. -----Original Message----- From: ArmChair List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Carson Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A "deep" look at media bias You're on to something here. The press has a bias toward "official" sources in general, both government and corporate. A huge part of a newspaper's non-advertising column inches are taken up either by press releases generated in PR departments, or by direct quotes from press conferences. Here's a couple of relevant quotes on the nonsensical nature of the "both sides" model of objectivity: "The norms of 'objective reporting' thus involve presenting 'both sides' of an issue with very little in the way of independent forms of verification... [A] journalist who systematically attempts to verify facts--to say which set of facts is more accurate--runs the risk of being acused of abandoning their objectivity by favoring one side over another.... "....[J]ournalists who try to be faithful to an objective model of reporting are simultaneously distancing themselves from the notion of independently verifiable truth.... "The 'two sides' model of journalistic objectivity makes news reporting a great deal easier since it requires no recourse to a factual realm. There are no facts to check, no archives of unspoken information to sort through.... If Tweedledum fails to challenge a point made by Tweedledee, the point remains unchallenged." >From Justin Lewis, "Objectivity and the Limits of Press Freedom" Project Censored Yearbook 2000. pp. 173-74 "...I find myself increasingly covering Washington's most ignored beat: the written word. The culture of deceit is primarily an oral one. The soundbite, the spin, and the political product placement depend on no one spending too much time on the matter under consideration. "Over and over again, however, I find that the real story still lies barely hidden and may be reached by nothing more complicated than turning the page, checking the small type in the appendix, charging into the typographical jungle beyond the executive summary, doing a Web search, and, for the bravest, actually looking at the figures on the charts." >From Sam Smith. Project Censored Yearbook 2000. p. 60 I also recall a quote from David Halberstam in which he said that objectivity, as professional journalists understood it, was adopting a pose of naivete and gullibility toward official pronouncements. What he meant, I think, is similar to Lewis' point. >From: rex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: rex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: A "deep" look at media bias >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:06:07 -0500 > >or another spin on that topic is that whether it is supposed left- (or >right) wing media bias, I have never seen an article that addresses the >more fundamental issue that most media space is devoted to "statism" (as >compared with your word "politics") where almost every "news" item is "the >government did THIS today..." or the government passed THAT law today" or >the government sued that business today." Indeed sometimes, no matter what >the issue, someone from the government is asked for a comment, as if the >news item was "The government had this to say about that...."! Sometimes I >pick up the newspaper and almost every article is simply telling the reader >what the government (e.g. politicians) said or did about various issues. >(even sports?!?!?) The government did this about a tax for another >stadium...; The government said this about big sports salaries; It is >very depressing. I've devoted a couple of webpages to the problem >http://members.ij.net/rex/media.html >http://members.ij.net/rex/mediapoint.html >I also think that the problem you describe is proof that government schools >violate the first amendment free of press and speech because government >schools not only destroy the market in education, government schools create >statists, and the news media are examples. > http://members.ij.net/rex/schoolsmedia.html > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Aschwin de Wolf > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:27 AM > Subject: A "deep" look at media bias > > > Hello list, > > Much has been written about left- (or right) wing media bias but I have >never seen an article that addresses the more fundamental issue whether the >amount of space papers (or the tv networks) devote to politics as such >reflects the average reader's interest in politics. Why do we not see more >(frontpage) news about health, personal finance, science etc? > _________________________________________________________________ Need a shot of Hank Williams or Patsy Cline? The classic country stars are always singing on MSN Radio Plus. Try one month free! http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio
