Re: Theories on Media Bias

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 08:36 PM 8/16/99 , TOM GABLE wrote:
>
>At 01:43 PM 08/16/1999 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>It's been exactly one month since I first went
>>public with my suspicions that the media was
>>suppressing the story about ICANN.
>
>>First, I reported how one of the most biased
>>news sources in the ICANN debate had admitted to
>>coordinating information with multiple "reporters
>>at other nationally-distributed publications."
>>
>>Then, I revealed the techniques of media bias by
>>giving some examples from News.com, ZiffDavis, and
>>Reuters.  After revealing this blatant bias, I often
>>asked: "I wonder why?"
>>
>
>A couple of answers from some 25 years in the public relations business and
>10 years before that as a financial and investigative journalist:


Hi Tom,

This is a wonderfully detailed and insightful 
summary.

As someone who is not from your industry, I 
just wanted to thank you for offering some very
plausible explanations for the continuing media 
blackout of the major competing point of view 
in the ICANN debate.

Respectfully,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.    404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)?   http://www.iperdome.com 

"All truth passes through three stages.  First, it is 
ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, 
it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)


>1. This is a "watching the grass grow" kind of story to most; there are no
>big news hooks to generate avid and widespread readership/viewership and it
>just keeps evolving slowly with the same players
>2. The story is difficult to explain in a couple of pithy paragraphs
>3. It has limited interest to the masses; they can't envision the "cause
>and effect" or what the tempest means to them directly
>4. There are few pivotal, breaking news events; when there are, the most
>knowledgeable reporters cover it but most don't because of No. 1, 2 and 3
>5. Almost every media outlet has its opinions, preferences and prejudices.
>How they are carried out in the reporting, or on the editorial pages, or
>both, depends upon the editorial policy and philosophy of the individual
>publication ownership and editorship.  Some use the news pages to
>editorialize.  Most don't.
>6. Always check the editorial policies of a media outlet before submitting
>anything.  Most don't run commentaries from outside writers unless it is in
>response to specific coverage, fits with their need as part of a special
>focus edition on an issue or has been pitched to them in advance.  There
>are probably other variations on this theme.
>7. Most editors and writers would take extreme umbrage with charges they
>are part of a large conspiracy to manipulate coverage of any issue, much
>less one  with the characteristics of No. 1, 2 and 3.  Although many on
>this list would probably disagree, there is a huge vein of integrity
>running through most journalists.  One would hope this leads to balanced
>coverage (all sides of the spectrum) of this evolving and important issue.
>
>Tom Gable
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The Gable Group
>New Frontiers in Marketing Communications

>Web Site: www.gablegroup.com
>(619) 234-1300; Fax  (619-234-9502)
>