CompuServe Messages

No, I mistyped. Read "would" in place of "wouldn't." I've heard politicians from ultra-conservative to radical leftists complaining about biased media for decades. Perception in these matters is highly subjective. Politicians of every stripe view the press through strongly tinted glasses. When every one of these people are mad at a journalist, chances are he's going about his job in a fair manner. When the Dems controlled Congress, it was just as easy to complain that they never got coverage without opposing GOP quotes, and I can think of endless GOP diatribes in the press last year against "Clintoncare." But guess what? It's the JOB of a reporter to go find those opposing views, if they exist. If an idea can't stand the heat of this public policy cauldron, it surely isn't going to last long in the legislative process, either. But more to the point, third parties have a much bigger beef than Dems or Republicans, because they're almost completely ignored. Don't worry, Karl, Dems and Republicans get plenty of ink, and if the GOP thinks it's slighted, it can always invite a few dozen more conservative talk show hosts in to the Capitol basement for free interviews. However, as a matter of fact, I *have* in recent months seen Republicans exclusively covered in stories. In fact, there's one in my local paper this a.m., wherein a state GOP senator here attacks Clinton on an environmental issue. No retort from the White House is included. That's only one-sided, of course, if the paper over time (not necessarily in the same story, though that would be best) gives the opposing side a chance. But it isn't whether a reaction appears in the same story as over time. Some reactions simply can't be covered on the same news cycle; the opposition after all usually needs time to respond, which is why presidents and other politicians love putting out bad news on the weekend, when it's least likely to be noticed. Some crazy politicians I've met (plenty to go around on both sides of the fence) compare column inches of pro and con coverage, as if that was the ultimate measure of fairness or objectivity; but by that standard, the flat earthers would get ink every time NASA launches a space shuttle. For better or worse, the more important a public figure is, the more he is sought out by the press, as Gingrich discovered at first to his delight and then to his chagrin. The bigger you are, the more your every word weighs. The more controversial your comments, the more likely it is contrary views will turn up. That's part of the the "man bites dog" definition of news. When Clinton says things are great and Dole says they're lousy, Dole will get a bigger headline every time. And vice versa. But your main point is that the press is disposed toward liberalism. Ask a conservative to name a liberal journalist, and two times out of three these days they cite Cokie Roberts, who, as I distinctly recall, suggested on David Brinkley's show a few weeks back that Clinton should move to the right. The newspapers in the hinterlands are by and large Republican backers. Even the beltway insiders have the Washington Times, and New York City both the conservative Daily News and Murdoch's right-wing Post, which outsell the Times. In my experience, most reporters (and most of them don't cover politics) are apolitical, which is why they became reporters. They're voyeurs, not doers. Those few that have a political agenda either become publishers or leave the profession eventually to get their hands directly on the issues. The rest mostly just love to write. A number of conservative institutions made a conscious and deliberate effort starting in the '70s to recruit political kindred to the journalism profession, in an effort to redress what Nixon saw as his prime enemy, the press. Conservative think tanks to this day help underwrite journalism programs and scholarships for right-thinking reporters, and the right wing press (such as the American Spectator) get far more help from conservative foundations than liberal rags get from liberal foundations. At least one flaming conservative worked for years as an editor on a news desk alongside of me; though he was as far to the right politically as I was to the left, we got along fine and together helped put out a damn good big city daily, which never in its history endorsed any candidate other than a Republican for president.