Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:53 AM 11/13/03 -0500, B. D. Colen wrote: >Marc, the role of the press it not to "protest," but to report. And >report on every meaningless twist and turn of every Clinton scandal the >press did - including the 'missing' law-firm records. ;-) > >No President I can think of - including Richard Nixon - was ever as >hounded by the media as Bill Clinton. BD I suspect that I am a bit older than you. I recall vividly the gentle manner in which the Press treated Eisenhower and Kennedy, the harsh treatment of Johnson, the absolutely vile treatment of Nixon (a President whom I did not like or support, incidentally), the softer handling of Ford, the foregiveness the press had for the ineptness of Carter, the vile treatment afforded Reagan, the inepitude with which the press treated Bush 41, the extreme gentleness the press displayed towards Clinton, and the vitrolic excesses of the press against Bush 43 (another President whom I neither like nor support and for whom, obviously, I did not vote). Clinton was never subjected to the sort of constant assailing which marks their treatment of Bush 43. (Consider the matter of that CIA operative whose recent husband is a detractor of Bush -- when her cover was "blown", not one of the major media outlets noted that she was not an overseas operative but was, rather, a middle-level analyst working in an office at Langley. The disclosure of her name was a problem, and a major one -- but it was not a situation where she was forced to flee from some foreign country due to the leak. Or consider the inability of the press to recognize the significance of the Democrat filibuster against Bush's Circuit Court nominees -- for the FIRST time in history, a minority party in the Senate is using a filibuster to block Presidential nominees who have obtained committee approval and who have sufficient votes to win approval if the filibuster was lifted. The press make this sound like a situation created by Bush while it is one created by Daschle and his herd and it constitutes a significant ramping-up of partisanship in the legislature -- and the press give Daschle and his cronies a free pass while blaming the Republican administration for the situation! One more brief example: the press have consistently stated that nominee Estrada "refused to divulge his views" to the Democrat minority, while the truth is that he refused to release memoranda of law which he prepared while in the employ of the Justice Department. First, these memos do not necessarily reflect Estrada's own views, as attorneys consulted by a client give the client adice based on the current state of the law and not on what they wish the law to be. Second, these memoranda are shielded by attorney-client privilege and can only be released with the approval of the Justice Department, which has not to this point been granted. Again, the major media keep whinging that Estrada "would not tell the Democrats how he felt" when the truth is that he was ethically required NOT to reveal memoranda which, at most, showed his appreciation of the current state of the law. Think how the media would have reacted had Estrada been a journalist being asked to reveal his sources!) Clinton was never subjected to this sort of bashing. The media excused him for his sexual harrassment of women, attempted to victimize the women who complained about Clinton's actions, and refused to acknowledge that the problem with Clinton was not that he was screwing around but that he was fibbing about it. Most of the national media put reports of Clinton's payments to buy off his accusers on page 43 of the sports section and certainly kept any commentary off the editorial pages. There are media outlets which "report" the news (I personally favor the British ECONOMIST as they admit their bias whenever it becomes an issue. I do not share their hankerings for a United Kingdom governed by the Liberal Party but they are honest in pointing this bias out) and outlets which "spin" the news. I have given you some examples above but I will cheerfully parse an article or two with you, on-line or off-line, to show how silent bias can turn what should be a "news" report into what is actually an opinion piece disguised as news. The failure of the American media to fully present all sides of controversial issues merely marks the failure of what the founding fathers expected to be the primary buttress against tyranny, a free and independent press. (To reduce this to an ultimate simplicity, think of that absurd inflation of Lord Rothmere played by Telly Savalas in THE ASSASSINATION BUREAU -- at one point, he bursts out joyfully, "PUNCH IN THE BIG HEADLINES! We'll make a SCANDAL out of it!" In the US media today, a minor glitch by a moderate such as Bush becomes a Major Scandal, while a major gaffe -- such as repetitive falsehoods by a sitting President -- becomes a minor matter when committed by someone on the Left.) Marc msmall@infionline.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html