Fairness in the Media

Fairness in the Media

During the 1992 presidential election a survey of press reporters found that 89% of those in the national media voted for the Democratic candidate William Jefferson Clinton, 8% for the Independent candidate H. Ross Perot, and only 3% for the Republican incumbent George Herbert Walker Bush. This lopsided majority did not reflect the general public’s view (43% for Clinton, 39% for Bush and 19% for Perot) and raised the question of media fairness.

In that year Bill Clinton appeared on the cover of Time Magazine twelve times while his opponents George Bush and Ross Perot appeared just twice. Read the unprinted letter to the editor of Time below and answer the questions at the bottom of the page.

Dear Time,

I have always realized that the American media has played a powerful influence in political elections, but it was not until this year when it really struck home. Congratulations on nominating our democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton. He has received more kid glove treatment and Time covers (five including an insert so far this year, compared to one for Tsongas, Bush and Perot and none for Jerry Brown) than any other candidate in our recent past. By the time his campaign reached the nation’s most populous state, California, Clinton’s closest democratic challenger Paul Tsongas was out of the race while Jerry Brown’s campaign was crippled.

Since the primaries have concluded, your glorification of Clinton and Bush bashing has reached new heights. Clinton’s dozen

magazine covers compared to just two for Bush (one in the eyes of the “angry voter”) and a new law suit of the Bush campaign by Time demonstrates your true feelings. I’m sure the American public appreciates you and your media partners help in ushering out somewhat truthful candidates such as Paul Tsongas and George Bush. Your direct aid in electing William Jefferson Clinton, arguably one of the most dishonest and vacillating candidates, as our next president will come back to haunt this nation. If you wanted to endorse Bill Clinton, you should have done so openly. It will be interesting to see your stance in four years. If I may give some humble advice, try and return to the basics of media coverage - fairness, impartiality, and quality.

1.) Do you agree with the author’s claims in the letter that Time was intentionally partial in the 1992 campaign? Why or why not?
2.) Do you believe that the author’s assertion that the media should be fair and impartial?
3.) The letter claims that Time magazine was intentionally biased. Does the evidence provided adequately support this claim? Why or why not?
4.) Later in 1992 Time magazine named Bill Clinton “person of the year.” The author of the previous letter wrote another letter noting, “Bill Clinton ran a slick campaign, but what "great and lasting" changes to the world did he make in 1992? President Bush's actions toward a New World Order with the Free Trade Pact and action in Somalia or Ross Perot's populist campaign for the presidency seem much more worthy of Time's honor. You also ignored many other candidates such as Nelson Mandela, F. W. Deklerk, or sports idol Magic Johnson who helped raise AIDS awareness to a new level. If you are so enamored with Clinton that you still have to name him 'Person of the Year', why don't you wait until he actually does something besides getting a percentage of the popular vote smaller than Michael Dukkakis'?” Does this change your viewpoint on question #1? Why or why not?
5.) Several of the magazine covers the author referred to in the first letter were questioning Clinton’s chances or his morals. Despite this many media analyst claim that “any press is good press for candidates.” Do you agree or disagree that for the most part any press is good press? Explain.