🚀 go-pugleaf

Joe Buck (jbuck@synopsys.com) wrote:
: You conveniently deleted the point I was replying to, in which you
: asserted that more people saw one network newscast than read all the
: conservative newspapers in the country.

Your assertion goes against all studies about the readerships of
newspapers vs. TV news for the last 30 years. If you can cite
a reference to show that the situation has changed recently 
I will address your point. The surplanting of newspapers by TV
news as people's primary source of news dates from the 70's.

: But while the NYT and Wash. Post were once liberal papers, it would be
: hard to argue that they still are.  
: Example: on health care, the liberal position is to be in favor of a
: Canadian-style single-payer system.  Clinton-style tinkering is a kind of
: middle-of-the-road approach, which you would expect since Clinton
: represents the conservative wing of the Democratic party (Hillary is
: a liberal, but Bill isn't -- he spent his whole career trying to move the
: Democrats to the right).  

This example indicates that YOUR definition of liberal is so far to
the left of reality that I am not surprise that you consider so
many liberal news organization to be conservative. 

: commentator) or Henry Kissinger (ABC paid consultant who has had more air
: time than any other guest).  This is network air time.  If you're willing
: to count CNN as a network (and you should) you've got Evans and Novak,
: arch-conservatives like Pat Buchanan up against moderate hawkish
: neoliberals from the New Republic.

These people get only a few minutes of air time. Limbaugh gets an
entire show. Through syndication Limbaugh reaches the same
size audience as a network show. This means that Will and Kissinger
are only tokens. Only someone as far to the left as you would consider
this a sign of conservatism.

: For years Diane Sawyer, who worked for Richard Nixon up until the final
: days and was deeply loyal to him, was on that show.  You give a single
: example of bias on a show that's been on for 20 years.

Mike Wallace and Dan Rather have both been with 60 Minutes for far
longer than Diane Sawyer. You lose 2 to 1.

: The second sentence doesn't follow from the first.  *Reporters* are more
: liberal than the country as a whole.  Their *bosses*, who have the final
: say, are more conservative.

Wrong. Their bosses' bosses' bosses are the ones you are referring to.
At the OPERATIONAL levels the bosses are usually former reporters.
Their political views are the same as their reporters.
At the CORPORATE levels where you MAY get the conservatives, the 
day to day operation of the reporters never show up unless the
reporters make a major blunder worthy of being itself news. 
What these bosses' bosses' bosses see are the balance sheets. If 
it is positive and growing, they could care less whether the 
bias is liberal or conservative as long as it sells. Money has
no odor as the Swiss saying goes.

: You're confusing the politics of individual reporters with the politics of
: the product.  A reporter can't directly put his or her own views into a
: story. He or she can slant a story by choosing which sources to quote.

You have just proven my point. The reporters slant the coverage to
their political viewpoints. That is the definition of bias.

: Furthermore, the editor (generally more conservative) often assigns the
: slant of a story up front.

The editor is usually a former reporter. A liberal reporter does
not sudden become a conservative just because he became an editor.

			   Danny Low
    "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You"
	   Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley
	     HP NSD   dlow@ppg01.sc.hp.com