I wonder what it would sound like if Alan Greenspan used words like Surfguy.. ...hmmmmm. [/B][/QUOTE] [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited February 13, 2001).]
Local coverage of the homeless tends to be consistent. National coverage tends to spike when we have a Republican in the White House. You might want to read a little more carefully next time. That is an excerpt from a study published in February of 1996-- at which time, Clinton had been in office for three years. Anyway, the issue I was trying to raise was neither one of the annoyance of being panhandled or the altruism of handing a Bozo-nosed wino your pocket change. I agree with Jeff that this is an important issue that should be near the forefront of our national discourse at all times. It is a shame that the national media disagrees and instead finds the topic of interest only when we have a Republican president. ------------------ "Corpses are icky." --Chris Robinson
I dunno. More and More I'm beginning to be a lil more conservative about somethings. If People had food, Shelter, clothing for free and did not have to work. . . would they? SERIOUSLY. If everyone had a house, all the food they need and clothing to warm them without working . . .. what would they do? Would they look for work and a way to make a contribution to society? More and More I find myself saying NO! They would be sitting at home watching Jerry Springer, Oprah and the McNeal Lehrer hour They would not read more They would be involved any more intellectual pursuits They would watch TV and get FAT. I'm begining to think the Struggle is part of progress when sh*t is easy . . . .they folx don't do much I REALLY HATE TO THINK THIS WAY but more and more I see this as more factual than anything. Rocket River BTW if it is free . . . what is substandard housing? I mean hell it's free . . beats the streets How about this. . . .PUt the homeless in prisons and make the prisoners Build more prisons while living in TENTS *bitter* today ------------------ [This message has been edited by Rocket River (edited February 13, 2001).]
Man, I totally agree on that one. Issues that always seem to be important to people never make the news unless it is controversial at the time. Meanwhile, nothing really changes. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
I have a solution for you. Watch television news on PBS, and listen to radio news on NPR. In news, truth is always the better choice than hype and hystrionics. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
I just told you or at least clearly implied that I'm pretty well fed up with hearing how the Republicans are either entirely or at least partially culpable for everything from bad weather to teenage acne. What makes you think I want to invite the NPR's steady drumbeat of liberal apologia into my home? Damn, why don't I just subscribe to Mother Jones while I'm at it? ------------------ "Corpses are icky." --Chris Robinson [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited February 13, 2001).]
Like I said, the truth always beats hype and hystrionics. If you let Rush Limbaugh and FOX News into your home, then you might as well let the XFL, WWF and Jerry Springer in as well. The audience is exactly the same! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited February 13, 2001).]
And like I said, it's foolish to imply that I'd be getting much unvarnished truth listening to the bedwetters at NPR. Goddamnit, I hate when I have to repeat myself: MediaWatch analysts used the MRC Media Tracking System to count the number of network evening news segments on homelessness in America on the four evening newscasts (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and CNN's Prime News or World News). Analysts found the problem faded from the list of priorities. In the Bush years (1989-1992), the number of homeless stories per year averaged 52.5, but in the first three years of the Clinton administration, the average dropped to 25.3 stories a year. During the Bush administration, the story count grew from 44 in 1989 to a peak of 71 in 1990, followed by 54 stories in 1991 and 43 in 1992. By contrast, stories on America's homeless dipped slightly to 35 stories in 1993, and 32 in 1994. In 1995, the number fell dramatically to just nine. When the count is broken down by network, CNN had the widest gap in reporting during the Bush years and Clinton years (90-30), closely followed by ABC (45-16), CBS (41-15), and NBC (36-15). That excerpt from the Media Research Center was already printed in this thread, above. Exactly my point. Just a coincidence, I am sure. ------------------ "Corpses are icky." --Chris Robinson
I am a lazy, illiterate idiot. Lots of stories didn't come out until the 1980s. The media never reported on crack until the mid-80s. Just because the media first started reporting something in the 1980's doesn't mean it started because of the president. Did the media start reporting on crack exclusively because of "Just Say No"? Did the media start reporting on the crack epidemic to make Reagan's drug war look bad?
Man I think the republicans are paranoid. My god they have ALL of the major offices, they control the freaking country, Obviously when the media reports something that happens to be negative it's going to point at the Republicans since they have FULL control of the government! Besides what does it matter if some negative things are said about the Republicans, they run the country. I never understood this "Liberal Media" thing, I think that all politicians get ripped equally and rightfully so. But if the media was as biased as people say, there is no way the Republicans would have the popularity to have a President and the majority of the seats. There is just no way. ------------------ Dream a deadly Dream. . . [This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited February 13, 2001).]
To answer my own questions... I don't think media reports on the homeless or crack are/were a concentrated media effort to discredit Bush/Reagan. Clinton was lucky to preside over an economic boom. Coincidentally, Bush's inauguration coincided with one of the worst economic quarters in recent history. So, coincidentally, it's time for a homeless article. In the Bush years (1989-1992), the number of homeless stories per year averaged 52.5, but in the first three years of the Clinton administration, the average dropped to 25.3 stories a year. During the Bush administration, the story count grew from 44 in 1989 to a peak of 71 in 1990, followed by 54 stories in 1991 and 43 in 1992. By contrast, stories on America's homeless dipped slightly to 35 stories in 1993, and 32 in 1994. In 1995, the number fell dramatically to just nine. How does this correlate with economic indicators? Looks (to my novice eyes) like a perfect correlation. When the economy is booming, less homeless articles, when the economy is tanking, more homeless articles. How can you be so sure that the trend in the number homeless articles is due to media bias? Why aren't economic indicators sufficient to explain this trend?
Crack and more specifically the crack epidemic did not exist until the 1980s. Reporting on it priot to that would have been like reporting on the Internet in 1983. Right and I agree-- it did NOT start BECAUSE of Reagan. But it would look less like that's what they're trying to imply if their coverage of the issue remained consistent through the years. As the MRC research indicates, the amount of coverage is directly influenced by the political party to which the President belongs. If the media were truly concerned with the plight of the homeless, they'd have continued the drumbeat throughout the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 2K administrations. Instead, the story first gained prominence while Reagan was President. Its momentum continued unabated through the Bush years. Then, lo and behold, it disappeared nearly completely during Clinton's administration... ...only to resurface less than a month into George W. Bush's presidency. I am sorry. That is not a coincidence. That is statistically tangible bias. ------------------ "Corpses are icky." --Chris Robinson
How can you be so sure that the trend in the number homeless articles is due to media bias? Why aren't economic indicators sufficient to explain this trend? Yes, Clinton was lucky to preside over the boom. Yes, the Bushes are unlucky to preside over recessions. Just means Clinton was lucky, not that the media are biased. Bush's inauguration coincided with the worst economic quarter in years. Low GNP growth, low sales of hard goods, layoff. A coincidence. Obviously not Bush's fault. Why doesn't think worst economic quarter explain the resurgence of homeless articles? Why must there be bias? [This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited February 13, 2001).]
Reagan presided over seven years of economic expansion, Bush two. If the stories are tied strictly to economic performance, why did the stories on homelessness boom during Reagan's tenure? Why did their number rise during Bush's growth years and shrink during the recession years? Your statement does not appear consistent with the data.
Weren't some of the first words out of W. Bush's mouth when he became president was something about a Recession coming? Whether he meant it or not, you leave an impression about homelessness and other things like that. ------------------ Dream a deadly Dream. . . [This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited February 13, 2001).]
Ok you win. You've outdueled me. All major media organizations ARE biased against the Republicans. There is simply no other explanation.
You win. Like I said. You have schooled me. (What is this, barneyfrank.com?) [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited February 13, 2001).]
BK: Let's be honest. Media Watch is a conservative media watchdog group. I'm sure there are liberal groups out there touting exactly the same stats in reverse. I had a professor at UH who studied bias in media for YEARS and found that liberal and conservative bias was pretty even across the board. He found that the media tended to focus on the shortcomings of whatever political persuasion was in favor. Just as you so eloquently called NPR "bedwetters," Fox News are "blowhards." We all have bias and the media is no different. What bothers me is that the media is uneven in all areas. Instead of focusing on the solutions, they mostly focus on the problems conservative OR liberal. It gives the appearance to most of us that there are far fewer solutions than there are problems and it has a paralyzing effect on people. In a wierd way, I guess the fact that the media is biased across the board makes it unbiased because every viewpoint is represented. Hmmmm... ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Well, for one, the number of homeless stories doesn't necessary correlate with the number of homeless people there are. And the number peaking in 1990, which was before the Bush Recession, would seem to indicate that there was no correlation between the economy and the number of stories. I would venture to guess, though, that the reason 1990 was the peak was because there were lots of stories about the census and proper counting of homeless people, etc. I remember that being a big issue and some big names and big organizations made a big point of bringing it up a lot. So because there was a new angle on homelessness (the proper counting of them in the census), you'd naturally have more stories than in another year. (In 2000, the counting of the homeless wasn't made as big an issue by the big name folks and organizations as it was in 1990, at least not that I recall). Stories regarding homelessness started getting more play in the '80s because there was a sea change in the way we looked at homeless people. They were thought of as bums before. In the '80s, they got to be a cause of big name people and big name organizations who made it their mission to draw attention to the situation. (There was also the changes in the mental health industry that some say resorted in more homeless people who were mentally ill and would've been hospitalized in earlier years). The natural ebb and flow of causes, though, means that any cause never stays on the front burner for long. A new cause comes along and the older causes lose their flavor and much of their coverage. And the celebs and "important" people move on to bringing attention to some new cause. Unless we happen to see a significant rise in stories about the homeless now, I would say it's just the natural ebb and flow of a cause and the stories surrounding it that changed the course of the coverage rather than any kind of bias. I think I may lose my membership in the Republican Party, though, by not claiming liberal bias is the cause, though. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
