Re: A deep look at media bias
Rex, I agree in general, but the fish example is a little misplaced. A few Individual Transferable Quotas--ITQs exist in US fisheries and there are many more proposals to extend their use in over harvested (most of them) US fisheries. New Zealand has an extensive system. They are an example of market-based management of open access resources. These do get reported in the popular media from time to time, but usually only after our friend Senator Stevens (Alaska) turns them down. rex wrote: I've seen many stories about government attempts to stop price gouging and none even hinted that there was another side, that gouging was good, that anti-gouging laws shouldn't exist, that they defeat market pricing, or that the laws caused problems. I've seen many stories about seafood being overharvested and need more government laws to limit takes, and never seen any mention that the problem was government ownership of water, defeating supply and demand incentives, soggy socialism, and the need for private property rights that would enable farming and market pricing. (if that wasn't bad enough I rarely see stories on farming of seafood, and they NEVER make the tie in to the lack of property rights in water that cause overharvesting in government water. It is unfortunate that (I believe) even the seafood farmers can't make the tie in, coming from government schools). I have never seen a seafood farmer on land suggest that he should be able to own areas now owned by government in order to farm in water owned by government, I have never seen a reporter ask such a question). I've seen many stories about water conservation and watering restrictions even including police state patrols and enforcement, and never seen even a hint that the problem was government ownership, lack of competition, lack of market pricing, defeating supply and demand, that would eliminate all the coverage made by the reporter in his socialist story. those are 3 easy ones I see a lot. I could go on and on. You've inspired me to ask the list serve participants to compile a collection. Please send in more examples of media blindness about capitalism, free market economics, pricing, property rights, which all prove that the first amendment is incompatible with government schools, and the latter must end. I swear it seems our schools accomplish exactly what soviet schools accomplished. the media prove that government schools produce socialists who know nothing about free market economics.
Re: A deep look at media bias
Media blindness in all its forms is a crusade of our web at www.beyond-branding.com , assembled and blogged by over 40 repenting marketing professionals Always happy to try to contextually mark anyone's map of all the ways this system compounds many of the depressing dynamics happening around our world. Chris Macrae, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , editor of first journal issue connecting corporate brand and responsibility -Original Message- From: ArmChair List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rex Sent: 03 December 2003 22:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A deep look at media bias I've seen many stories about government attempts to stop price gouging and none even hinted that there was another side, that gouging was good, that anti-gouging laws shouldn't exist, that they defeat market pricing, or that the laws caused problems. I've seen many stories about seafood being overharvested and need more government laws to limit takes, and never seen any mention that the problem was government ownership of water, defeating supply and demand incentives, soggy socialism, and the need for private property rights that would enable farming and market pricing. (if that wasn't bad enough I rarely see stories on farming of seafood, and they NEVER make the tie in to the lack of property rights in water that cause overharvesting in government water. It is unfortunate that (I believe) even the seafood farmers can't make the tie in, coming from government schools). I have never seen a seafood farmer on land suggest that he should be able to own areas now owned by government in order to farm in water owned by government, I have never seen a reporter ask such a question). I've seen many stories about water conservation and watering restrictions even including police state patrols and enforcement, and never seen even a hint that the problem was government ownership, lack of competition, lack of market pricing, defeating supply and demand, that would eliminate all the coverage made by the reporter in his socialist story. those are 3 easy ones I see a lot. I could go on and on. You've inspired me to ask the list serve participants to compile a collection. Please send in more examples of media blindness about capitalism, free market economics, pricing, property rights, which all prove that the first amendment is incompatible with government schools, and the latter must end. I swear it seems our schools accomplish exactly what soviet schools accomplished. the media prove that government schools produce socialists who know nothing about free market economics.
Re: A deep look at media bias
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
Re: A deep look at media bias
I've seen many stories about government attempts to stop price gouging and none even hinted that there was another side, that gouging was good, that anti-gouging laws shouldn't exist, that they defeat market pricing, or that the laws caused problems. I've seen many stories about seafood being overharvested and need more government laws to limit takes, and never seen any mention that the problem was government ownership of water, defeating supply and demand incentives, soggy socialism, and the need for private property rights that would enable farming and market pricing. (if that wasn't bad enough I rarely see stories on farming of seafood, and they NEVER make the tie in to the lack of property rights in water that cause overharvesting in government water. It is unfortunate that (I believe) even the seafood farmers can't make the tie in, coming from government schools). I have never seen a seafood farmer on land suggest that he should be able to own areas now owned by government in order to farm in water owned by government, I have never seen a reporter ask such a question). I've seen many stories about water conservation and watering restrictions even including police state patrols and enforcement, and never seen even a hint that the problem was government ownership, lack of competition, lack of market pricing, defeating supply and demand, that would eliminate all the coverage made by the reporter in his socialist story. those are 3 easy ones I see a lot. I could go on and on. You've inspired me to ask the list serve participants to compile a collection. Please send in more examples of media blindness about capitalism, free market economics, pricing, property rights, which all prove that the first amendment is incompatible with government schools, and the latter must end. I swear it seems our schools accomplish exactly what soviet schools accomplished. the media prove that government schools produce socialists who know nothing about free market economics.
Re: A deep look at media bias
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" (ascompared 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 andalmost every article is simply telling the reader what the government (e.g. politicians)said or did about various issues.(even sports?!?!?) The governmentdidthis about a tax foranother stadium...; The government said this about big sportssalaries; 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 themarket in education, government schoolscreate statists, and the news media areexamples. 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 fundamentalissuewhether the amount of space papers (or the tv networks) devote to politics as suchreflectsthe averagereader'sinterest in politics.Whydo we not seemore (frontpage) news about health, personal finance, science etc?
