The Media Debate Continues

Articles

The Media Debate Continues

By Jack Lepiarz
Jan. 7, 2006

Yes, Tom, I did read the research that Dr. Mick provided. And I am already familiar with the UCLA source that he provided. Jeffrey Milyo appeared on Tucker Carlson's show on Dec. 19th (although for only two minutes). I remember thinking how silly the concept was, taking only 20 news sources (out of thousands) and using them as conclusive proof of media bias. I would like to direct both you and Dr. Mick to the following sites:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

http://mediachannel.org/blog/book/print/2454

I know that Dr. Mick isn't fond of blogs, but after the whole memogate fiasco, I think they deserve a little more credit.

Another source, straight out of the Arkansas News Bureau, offers little substantial evidence, and offers three examples of well-known liberal news sources. Wow, never would've guessed that CNN and the New York Times were liberal. The third source shows blatant bias in its URL (www.theconservativevoice.com), so I'll disregard it.

I will come back to Dr. Mick's article in a moment, but now I would like to address your four points that you make. You say, "conservatives are angry at the media's exclusion of conservative perspective in the venues that have the greatest influence." You cite Hollywood as one example where conservatives are not properly represented. I can understand your point, but at the same time, it is irrelevant. Hollywood is not media. Hollywood is a business that makes money selling fiction. It is not expected to report facts, like CNN or Fox News. I seriously doubt that an agent would reject an actor based on his political beliefs. Normal Hollywood (and I don't mean Michael Moore, who is really not going to persuade anyone, since nobody except for liberals went to see Fahrenheit 9/11) has about the same political influence as the Dunkin' Donuts across the street. None.

I can agree that my generation pays more attention to music and movies than to politics, but since neither of those really delve deeply into the world of politics or news (unless we're talking about Michael Jackson molesting someone), that argument is also irrelevant. As is the argument regarding college professors. College professors, regardless of political standing, will not persuade a college student to change their beliefs. By college, most teens know where they stand, and will usually remain that way until they decide to change themselves. A liberal college professor shouting about how awful George Bush is will do nothing but reinforce liberals, alienate conservatives, and cause an uproar about his/her biased teaching.

As for the fourth point, you state that Hollywood actively excludes conservatives. Once again I disagree. If that were the case, then Mel Gibson would not still be acting. Honestly, there's an entire film festival dedicated to conservative film.

In Dr. Mick's article, he outlined a couple of things that help him evaluate how biased a source is--where the story is headlined, whether or not the story gets printed, how much air time a story gets, the choice of words in a headline, and whether or not facts are correct.

Which is why I'd like take this time and use those five points and say precisely why the media is conservative, and at the same time, show that Fox News is NOT "fair and balanced."

First of all, Let's look at who runs the primetime slot on Fox. Conservatives control Fox from 8 to 10 P.M. Any liberals on Fox appear during the afternoon, when most people are at work, or in school, or have better things to do. Tucker Carlson held the primetime slot on MSNBC for a while, until the utter failure of his show caused it to be moved to 11 P.M. What a shame.

Which stories get printed? How about the general silence about conservative Rupert Murdoch buying out almost all of commercial radio, essentially creating a conservative monopoly on the radio waves. I understand that Dr. Mick doesn't agree that conservative ownership of a news station causes it to be conservative, but I tend to disagree. Why do you think so much of radio is controlled by conservatives?

Next, Dr. Mick asks why Abu Ghraib appeared 50 times in the NY Times. Well, there's a word called prominence in journalism, and scandals like that usually get a lot of coverage. How much coverage did the Lewinsky scandal get? How much coverage did the utterly false claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth get? See where I'm going with this?

Choice of words: Rush Limbaugh's use of "Feminazis" to describe feminists and "eco-terrorists" to describe environmentalists is a great example. Tom DeLay's calling the pulling of the plug on Terri Schiavo an "act of barbarism" when he himself had pulled the plug on his brain-dead father 16 years earlier is an example of "choice of words." Also, the media's failure to cover the DeLay story also reinforces my belief that they are not all liberals trying to destroy Republicans at every turn.

Lastly, as for correct facts? The enormity of lies that come out of Sean Hannity's mouth never cease to amaze me. As David Letterman said to Bill O'Reilly, "I have a feeling that 60 percent of what you say is crap."

Well said, Dave, well said.

------------

About the author: Jack Lepiarz is a senior at Madison High School. Born in Waco, Texas, he lived with the Big Apple Circus for much of his early childhood, eventually moving to Madison, New Jersey, where he now resides. Although he is often described as stubborn and egotistical, he tries to keep an open-mind towards new ideas and treat people the way he would like to be treated.

Email: Jackwuzhere42@aol.com

Comment on this article here!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED!