Basic HTML Version
media, are loath to part with it. Sub–
sequent events a re subjectively in–
terpreted to fit the model. If an
event shows signs of runnin g
counter to an accepted notion, the
analyst or commentator will attempt
to isolate it, point out that it is a
minor exception to the rule, or find
sorne aspect of it that appears to be
in harmony with his preconceived
image.
The news media 's treatment of
California's recent tax revolt and
the passage of the controversia!
Proposition 13 is a case
in
point.
During the heat of the campaign
much debate centered around
whether passage of Proposition 13
would require subs tantial cuts in es–
sentía! government services such as
fire fighters, police, and paramedics.
One major network, in an ostensibly
objective eyewi tness news report ,
took the TV viewer on an insider's
tour of paramedies at work, answer–
ing calls and applying first aid. One
scene recorded the paramedics ren–
dering timely and vita l assistance to
a woman wi th a serious cardio–
pulmonary problem. In almost j uve–
nile terms the news commentator
noted the obvious: that in such cases
time is of the essence and that there
was a growing fear that this timely
assistance-in sorne cases a life-and–
deatb matte r- would no longcr
be avai lable if Propositio n 13
passed.
While the short TV news clip did
not say it in so many words, the
viewer was left with the distinct im–
pression that Proposition 13 was a
looming menace to the life and
health of the community. No a t–
tempts were made
in
the pa rticula r
newscast to balance this rathe r de–
pressing view by analyzing the pa r–
ticulars of California's monumental
budgetary surplus, or the state's
enormous expenditures for less–
than-vital services such as highway
construction, public works projects
or generous retirement benefits. No
criticism was made of priorities in
government spending, nor was there
any examination of whether it
would be possible with less empha–
sis on nonessentials to have both the
paramedics and Proposition 13 as
well. Instead, the viewer's attention
20
was riveted on only one of many
areas where spending could be cut,
and he was left to ponder the
possible havoc Proposition 13
might wreak on emergency vic–
tims.
In
terms of the national press,
Proposi tion 13 and the Cali fornia
tax revolt, like Cambodia, went
aga inst the grain of conventional
political wisdom. For the last few
decades pu blic-opinion sha pers
have to one degree or a nother
shared a philosophy that was for–
mulated by successive ruling elites:
namely, tha t government should
cure, solve or at Jeast minimize
many of society's ills, no matter how
much it costs the taxpayer. By
passing Proposition 13, the Cali–
fornia electorate challenged that
notion.
But sections of the media were
reluctant to describe the California
tax revolt for what it really was.
Blame was placed on the unique
and skyrocketing property tax situ–
ation, the inaction of the state legis–
lature, and infiationary pressures.
While numerous news analysts fo–
cused on the out rage of the tax–
payers or voter "hedonism," few
seemed willing to ask fundamental
questions regarding the most " hedo–
nistic" aspect of our socie ty:
namely, an arrogant, self-perpetu–
ating government bureaucracy.
Confuslng Hard News with
Editorial Commentary
One method of news slanting which
often goes unnoticed occurs when
editorials are printed as front-page
news stories. A recent example in–
volved President Carter and the
Marston affair. David Marston was
a federal prosecutor in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. He was a Republican
and had been appointed during the
Ford Administration. Traditionally,
incoming presidents had made ap–
pointments to this type of office on
the basis of political considera tions.
Candidate Jimmy Carter, when run–
ning for Presiden!, had promised to
eliminate the politica1 favoritism
from this process and to make such
appointments solely on the basis of
merit.
Unfortuna te1y, Marston's perfor-
manee became too meritorious, and
certain Democratic Congressmen
began to feel the heat as he closed
in on sorne obvious sources of politi–
cal corruption that were festering in
Pennsylvania.
After becoming President , Carter
received an a lmost desperate call
from one of the politicians involved,
pleading for Marston's removal.
The President obliged, and the Mar–
ston affair e rupted as the press and
public reacted to the firing of a fed–
eral prosecutor whose investiga–
tion was just beginning to bear
fruit.
Short1y after the Marston affai r
broke, a major west coast daily car–
ried a "news" story concerning " the
long odds facing Carter's meri t se–
lection system." The reporter's con–
tention was that because a certain
infiuentia l Southern Democratic
senator would have to
approve
any
appointments that Carter made, it
wou1d be vi rtually impossible to in–
stitute a merit system over the sena–
tor's powerful political veto. The
reporter a1so noted that "by the
time the Marston matter made
headlines, the question of whether
Carter abided fully by his pledge to
name prosecutors 'without any con–
siderations of political aspects or in–
fluence' should not have come as a
surprise."
Obviously, the writer, unlike the
general public, was aware of the po–
lítica! rea lities surrounding appoint–
ment of federal prosecuto rs. So
from
his
standpoint the Marston af–
fair may not have been that surpris–
ing. But one could hardly expect the
public to be eitber that familiar or
sympa thetic with Washington back–
room politics in light of wha t they
had been promised during the presi–
dential campaign.
ln addition, the "surprising" thing
about the writer's assessment is that
the Marston affair did not involve
an
appointment
that wou ld have
been infiuenced by the powerful
Southern senator. It involved the
firing
of a prosecutor already in of–
fice . Thus the powerful Southern
senator would not have had any in–
fiuence in the removal of Marston
had the Administration Jeft things
alone. Viewed from this standpoint,
The PLAIN TRUTH October-November 1978