World & I Online Magazine  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
 Username:   Password:     Subscribe   Register               About Us | Contact Us | FAQs
18-Year Archive Peoples of the World Book Review Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

Online Magazine
 
  Current Issue
Editorial
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
18-Year Archive
American Waves
Book Reviews
Ceremonies/Festivities
Eye on the High Court
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Teacher's Guide
Traveling the Globe
Worldwide Folktales
Writers and Writing

Prejudiced Press and the Election


Article # : 14883 

Section : CURRENT ISSUES
Issue Date : 10 / 1988  2,405 Words
Author : Brent H. Baker and Marc S. Ryan
Brent H. Baker is executive director of the Media Research Center (MRC) and editor of its monthly newsletter, Media Watch. Marc S. Ryan is the MRC's vice president for research and Media Watch's associate editor. MRC media analyst Dorothy Warner provided research for this article.


       Enthusiastic Republicans from across America Arrived in New Orleans to nominate George Bush as their candidate for president of the United States. But ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC were also enthusiastic--in picking up the cause of the Democrats and going on the attack against the values and policies supported by the GOP.
       
        Media Research Center analysis of how the four major television networks covered the August convention found that reporters repeatedly portrayed the Republicans as extreme and on the fringe of the American political spectrum: in other words, simply out of tune with average Americans. How did they do this? By incessantly labeling convention-goers as conservative ideologues and attacking Republicans all they could--on issues including opposition to abortion, ERA, the plant closings bill, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act.
       
        That's quite a different approach than the networks had taken in Atlanta a month earlier, when they fawned over the Democrats and their views. Democratic National Chairman Paul Kirk could not have been happier. Thanks to the networks, his charade worked. Viewers at home saw presidential nominee Michael Dukakis portrayed as a competent manager and political moderate, not an ideological liberal. In fact, network anchors and reporters labeled Dukakis a moderate about as often as they tagged him liberal. The networks avoided substance as much as possible. Any controversies surrounding the Democrats and criticisms all but ignored. Instead, Dukakis ended up just where he wanted to be: holding down the middle ground between Jesse Jackson on the left and vice presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen on the right.
       
        A good way to see which party the media favor is to review their reporting patterns in four areas: labeling, the ideology of those interviewed, the ideological agenda of the questions posed, and the way controversies in the two parties are highlighted or ignored. What emerges from analysis of the convention coverage is a clear double standard: The four major networks most Americans rely on for their news coddled the Democrats and condemned the views of Republicans.
       
        Labeling
       
        At the Democratic Convention, anchors, reporters, analysts, and commentators almost evenly split 86 labels they attached to the candidates, delegates, those in attendance, or Democrats in general: 52 percent of the labels were liberal ones, 48 percent moderate or conservative. But when it came to the Republican Convention,
... Read Full Article


Look for this article in Ask.com

Copyright © 2004 The World & I. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy