Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!cbnap!cbneb!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Evil Media
Message-ID: <5582@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 12:08:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5582
Posted: Mon Jul 15 12:08:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 08:23:49 EDT
References: <761@ihlpg.UUCP>, <477@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 70


Tim Maroney:

>Second, granting for the moment that the press is composed primarily of
>atheists, what would you expect?  Consider for a moment the nature of the
>journalistic profession, that of skeptical inquiry.  A journalist is not
>supposed to believe ANYTHING unless he can objectively substantiate it.  The
>job of a journalist is to select among possibilities based solely on the
>evidence.  And, resurrection proof-mongers to the contrary, there simply is
>not any objective evidence of God.  A journalistic mindset thus demands
>atheism.  If indeed most journalists are atheists, that shows that they have
>acquired the mindset they OUGHT to have, that of skepticism.

The media seems to be less skeptical of some things than others.  What
determines the amount of skepticism has less to do with objective
substantiation than the presuppositions of the group's own ideology.

The issue of the existence of God shouldn't have as much to do with media
bias as the presentation of religious perspective.  The media controls
what much of the public sees and how it sees it.  I don't know where Tim
gets the idea that "a journalistic mindset demands atheism".  What right
does the media have to filter events and opinion through and atheistic judgement
on the existence of God or any other issue?  Is there any objective evidence
for the non-existence of God?  What about skepticism toward atheistic
presuppositions?  Who provides the media viewers with that?  Surely
you don't equate the atheistic mindset with objectivity and skepticism
itself.  The atheist is skeptical about *certain* things; some different
things than the theist.  The media's unified stance in its particular brand
of skepticism has a lot to do with that brand being accepted as the standard
for objectivity.  It becomes the unquestioned framework in which many view
the world.

I think that objectivity in media is a myth; a myth that the media itself
likes to support.  It wouldn't be as bad if the media's religious bias
was not either played down so much or justified as having the more "objective"
perspective (as Tim seems to be doing here).  At least then people would
be stimulated to think more critically about what the media is saying.
(Which is really the best we could hope for, considering that objectivity
in the media is a myth.  It probably always will be, as long as any given
ideology dominates among its members.  Something close to objectivity
might be achieved through diversity).

>Third, again granting the "poll" findings, they are not statistically valid
>because they do not take into account educational or economic factors.

How do you know?  Your first point complained that nobody named the poll.

>Journalists tend to be upper middle class, college educated people.  Among
>these people, atheism is more common than in the population as a whole.  I
>believe comparison of the percentage of atheists within journalism and the
>percentage of atheists in all upper middle class, college educated people
>would show a much smaller difference.  The failure to take these factors
>into account implies that if the poll is real, it was probably commissioned
>by a partisan group which had a vested interest in the findings coming out
>as they did.

The "much smaller difference" may still be significant.

Your generalizations on percentages may be true enough but it in no way
substantiates the bias of media members.  To maintain that it does gives
some kind of inherent propriety to upper middle class, college educated
people in presenting *their* view of events.  I suppose that you could say
that among this same group of people the number of white males is also
greater than in the general population.  This says nothing about whether the
perspective of Blacks and women are being represented adequately or with
fairness in the media.  Or does it?

-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd