RE: [Leica] BD's Point and Free Speech

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

1. I'm older than you, Marc.
2. Yes, many Presidents have gotten free passes - Reagan wasn't known as
the Teflon President for nothing.
3. To suggest that Bill Clinton got gentle treatment from the media
suggests you were vacationing on Mars during both his terms.
4. To suggest that Bush The Duller is being hounded by the media is so
ludicrous as to not even be worth dealing with.  

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Marc James
Small
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:59 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] BD's Point and Free Speech


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

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html