BY ACCIDENT OR DESIGN?

There are those who monitor T.V. news with a stop watch, counting the number of minutes their candidate gets and whether it is favorable or critical.  They work for the campaigns of specific parties.

Still other bean counters work independently.  They even measure the minutes and seconds of both positive and negative comments. Generally, it is found that news show producers are quite even in the amount of time given opposing campaigns, but may at times appear to favor one candidate over another.  Whether by accident or design, by the end of the news presentation, a viewer may be left with a plus feeling toward one candidate and a negative feeling toward another.

Certainly a news station cannot control what a candidate may do that they report on, but they should at least appear to be non-biased in their presentation.  We got interested in all this recently when CNN reporters and pundits all ap- peared to be reading from the same script, especially on their "Inside Politics" (IP) program. The main question they were asking and giving repetitive answers to was: "Why don't the voters like Al Gore?"

Now this all started BEFORE the recent polls indicating that Al was trailing his opponent by eight points.  It occurred to us that if we heard it often enough, we, as voters might come to believe that WE didn't like Al, so we started to take notes.  Over a period of 5 days, the leads or head- lines on IP previewed negative comments on Gore and positive things that Gore's opponent was doing, along with film clips for both.

The negative leads varied that related to Gore.  On one day the preview promised us a look at Gore's "weak spotS."  When the actual segment came on, it was devoted to an analysis of "how badly Gore had lost the women's vote, especially married women.  Another preview declared that Gore was "underperforming."  Then a reporter declared that he was "reaching out to veterans, a voting group that is not partial to him."

Still another IP program asked the question, "Can Al Gore win?"  Citing polls, we were told that he was 8 points behind his opponent.  He was losing his base voters to his opponent, especially married women and he was holding only a 1 point lead with older women.  Most damaging, we were told, was the declaration that Gore was losing among all age and income groups.

On these same news programs, Gore's opponent was said to be "a more likable guy than Gore."  The reporter declared that Gore's opponent was talking about issues that were tradi- tionally democratic issues and that this "was a cause for alarm in the Gore camp".

As the week went on, the reporters said that polls showed that Gore was now behind by 6 points, NOT THAT HE HAD GAINED 2 POINTS OR THAT HIS OPPONENT HAD LOST 2 POINTS.  We were also told that the specific poll referred to over the week was from vote.com -- hardly one of the most trustworthy of sources.  In the last program in the week, the newsreader told us of new polling results -- the prestigious PEW POLL showed that Al Gore was behind by one point.  The fact that this amounted to a virtual dead heat was not even mentioned.

Both candidates for the presidency have warts or baggage but IP only put Gore's up on the screen for illustration.  For example, if a story was on fund raising, there was Gore in the temple with all the saffron robes but if there was reference to his opponent and religion, the pictures of him at the Bobby Jones's "Redneck Academy" were never used.  If honesty and trustworthiness of either man was the subject, there was Clinton and Monica on the rope line, but no sign of the former president saying, "I was out of the loop on Iran Contra" or "Read my lips, no new taxes."

Talk about parsing words!!!  Gore was often accused of FLIP FLOPPING, most recently on the Gonzales caper.  "He will do and say anything to win" was a comment often heard.  But, when his opponent, who had dumped all over the use of trigger guards during the primary campaign, made a one-eighty in his remarks to the Million Mom March, the reported called it, "a rhetorical shift in his position."

To cap the climax on the week, the Friday program devoted more time to an interview with NON-CANDIDATE John McCain than it did to ANY other candidate.  Ignoring their own previous observations that McCain was less than enthusiastic for the Republican nominee, reporters blithely directed questions about the presidential campaign to him AS IF HE WERE THE CANDIDATE, instead of the loser.

The media's love affair with McCain just gets hotter and hotter.  He has now formed his own "Straight Talk Express" PAC and is off on a campaign to defeat Al Gore and all other Democrats.  Admitting to the press that he was wrong about the Confederate flag, he pretended to endorse the Republican candidate leaving no doubt as to his true feelings. This is straight talk?  Evidently it's OK with the press -- for them he da man.

The question remains.  Is this uneven treatment by accident or design?  Are we voters being subliminally programmed to vote for whoever the press declares is the most likable and/or capable of winning?  Are we directed to think that if we vote Republican that we get McCain for president?  That would sure work to get the Independent's vote in the hopper for the Republicans.

One thing for sure.  We all need to pay attention to what we are being told.  We must listen with a critical ear, see with a critical eye and evaluate with a critical mind.

[email protected]  

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/2000-020.htm