From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:56:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.140514.9595@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <C0GGHI.C1J@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>	It's media that tells you to blame the media. Funny. You listen.
>>You repeat. Add thought to your repertiore, Mr. Bunker.
>
>When polled, 3 times as many journalists identified themselves as
>Democrats than as Republicans.  Perhaps you should add being informed
>to your repertiore ...

	Where did you read that poll? Answer: The media. The point I was
making is that both liberal and conservative views are in the media, and
listening and citing just one side or the other is ridiculous, and equally
biased. The % of conservative media doesn't matter in this case. Pritchett
was bitching about the media's "mind-control" over voters, and how they
tell us what to think, who to vote for. While complaining about same,
he did same. He didn't offer any thought- he repeated what he read or
watched. You may not think so. Fair 'nuff.

>In the Newsweek issue after the election special issue, one writer said
>that it was no wonder Clinton was elected - the media elected him.

	Sheesh, you complain about media influence in one breath,
and quote "one writer" in another. Who did that writer work for?
Answer:the media. If the media elects only liberal democrats, and
has such sway over the public, how do we explain only two Dem's in
6 elections? Applied thought tells me that the media follows the
American interests to some degree, and does indeed influence those
interests to some degree. In the case of Clinton, the media clearly
beat up on him until the voters demonstrated their support for him
was unfailing. Perhaps, midway through the primaries (or, it seems
upon reflection, nearer the end of the primaries), the media jumped
on the voter-initiated bandwagon.
 
>  I
>remember when people were still amazed that the week after the election
>the media started putting out =good= news about the economy.  I've since
>noticed that there is no more good news being published.  Why?  Because
>too many people caught on to how the media is manipulating the nation.
>So, they are manipulating it again - this time so we don't see that
>Bush was right about the economy being in recovery.  Clever, eh?

	Far too clever. The media, conservative or liberal, reacts to
us, and the folks in the media are the same people who generated 
and propigated gossip in high school, or are equivalent. No, they
don't take an unbiased approach. Their bias, most of the time, is 
to amplify any story, bad or good, to a level that will attract
readership. That is my opinion. There certainly are and can be found
examples to the contrary, individuals who always try to push an
agenda. It is clearly up to us to incorporate other means of assessing
candidates and any other issue. 
	Think of it this way: Jim says all calculators are flawed in
a way that makes the calculations come out just below the correct
number. I tell Jim that the number his calculator gives has an equal
chance of giving an incorrect number, only in the other direction-
its results are a tad higher than the actual, making the flawed
numbers look more flawed than they actually are. You can't use a
calculator to determine how far off another calculator is, if we
realize they are all flawed to some degree. We must do the work
long-hand. Think. Compare calculator results. 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24879 talk.politics.misc:67306 tx.politics:8215 misc.legal:22411