Press policy

[David Bernstein]

There are several undefended assumptions here:

(1) That a survey of Fox proves anything.  Fox news has specifically set
itself up as an alternative to the perceived liberal media bias.

(2) That there is such a thing as a "big business line."  AOL Time Warner
wants massive antitrust restrictions on Microsoft.  Microsoft wants lax
antitrust enforcement.  These are two of the largest corporations in America.
 Which one represents the "big business line."

(3) That reporting is influenced more by the corporate ownership of the
outlet, and less by the personal ideologies of the news writers and
announcers, who are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats.  As long as Dan Rather
gets good ratings, I doubt CBS cares what ideology he has or expresses on the
news.

(4) That corporations act to promote "conservative" interests.  Studies of
funding by major corporations show that the overwhelming amount of their
charitable contributions go to left wing organizations.  They also tend to be
the greatest champions of affirmative action/racial preference policies, for
example, and were generally highly-supportive of the Clintoncare proposals.

(5) That left-wing criticism of the media, even if valid from their
perspective, demonstrates a conservative bias in the medis.  The mainstream
media--the major networks, the Times, Post, etc.--are best described as
establishment liberal.  Groups further to the left are undoubtedly correct in
perceiving "conservative" bias in the media from their more extreme point of
view.  But that doesn't mean that if you compare the media to the median
voters' ideology, that the media is conservative; almost certainly the
opposite.  And as for excluding alternate perspectives, if it wasn't for John
Stossel, the libertarian perspective, which is more or less adhered to by
15-20% of the population, would be basically entirely absent from the major
news networks, while Bill Safire is the closest one gets to a libertarian in
the Times or the Post (excluding the subtle libertarianism in Dave Barry's
humor columns in the Post), and it's not very close.  How many news stories
on t.v. discuss the urgent need for more government spending on ___, compared
to how many report on failed government programs (except to show that they
need more money to succeed?)



In a message dated 11/2/2001 1:31:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mcurtis at LAW.WFU.EDU writes:


>
> There is a larger question here.  Most Americans get their news and
> information largely from TV or from internet sites provided by one of a
> very few mass media corporations.  If the head of GE decides that news must
> be reported in a way that advances corporate interests (eg nothing negative
> about nuclear power or the proposed tax benefits for corporatioons)---(as
> some have alleged), and if similar media conglomerates behave the same way,
> what is the effect on democracy as to those issues? As to left wing bias in
> the mass media, one might look at talk radio or at the recent survey of Fox
> that showed some 75% of guests on news programs conservative or at how much
> detail the major corporations give to which income groups benefit from tax
> changes (as opposed to brief dueling sound bites) or at myriad other issues
> one can find in books like Mega Media or Rich Media Poor Democracy. For a
> well functioning democracy we would want a mass media that provided
> substantial information and alternate perspectives.  One reason that
> political money is increasingly crucial is that the media does less and
> less reporting of the typical political race--and why not?  Instead,
> politicians and those with the money to buy issues ads provide huge revenue
> for the media corporations. On economic issues the media tends toward the
> big business line; on social issues, it tends to be more liberal--at least
> that is my impression and I think what some studies show.  So both the left
> and right may be correct about bias--it depends on which issues.  So here,
> as in the cases of Murdock kicking the BBC out because it was too critical
> of the human rights record of the Chinese (ditto for his Haper Collins book
> publishing and the broken contract with the last British Gov. of Hong
> Kong)--he wants to sell his soaps etc to China-- and all the rest,
> conflicts of interest between the corporate bottom line and the role of a
> free press in a democracy are becoming acute. Nor are do the critics of
> corporate influence on the mass media get much mass media attention--of
> course.  Nor as Bob Dole and John McCain noted, did the TV media carry the
> speeches of those--like Dole and McCain-- who criticised the Communications
> Act as an outrageous give away. There are no simple answers to these
> problems.  But ignoring what is happening is the very  worst response.
> Michael Curtis
>


David E. Bernstein
Associate Professor
George Mason University
School of Law
(703) 993-8089
Home Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste
Only One Place of Redress Home Page:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste/Redress.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20011102/6a6d0faa/attachment.htm