From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:09:40 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)

In article <1992Aug28.132325.21560@tamsun.tamu.edu>, fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
|> Rene J. Valdes writes:
|> 
|> >I believe the people involved in journalism are more aware of history and
|> >current social and political events than your average Joe, and have dedicated
|> >more time and effort to study and understand the issues facing this country
|> >and the world today.  
|> 
|> Rene first mistake.  Trust the average Joe.  This is the guy pumping gas, hammering
|> nails, working on your car.  This average Joe or Joette knows what he or she needs
|> to make it.  

Where are my second, third, fourth mistakes, Fred?  Since you started counting I 
thought there would be some coming...  But, well, I don't think I said I did not trust
the average person.  I sure would not want a journalist hammering the nails of my
house or working on my car's engine.  But, then again, I would not want a car
mechanic interviewing George Bush or a contruction worker analyzing the 
unemploymment situation on CNN.  I do believe that people in the media know more
than me, for instance, about many issues affecting the USA and the world, because
that is their job.  If I did not spend so much time writing C code or some technical
specification, I sure would be able to study the health care issue, the war in Bosnia,
the situation in Somalia, the devastation caused by hurricane Andrew in Florida,
the federal deficit, the unemployment crisis in this country, the fall of the
dollar, etc, etc...  People in the media (at least most of them) are hired to be 
knowledgable about such issues and so that they can report on them intelligently. 

|> >Thus, it follows that they will be more inclined to favor
|> >candidates that have a better understanding of what this country needs and
|> >present a workable serious program of government rather than a "blame-
|> >everybody-for-not-having-family-values" and "take-credit-for-whatever-
|> >went-well-and-blame-congress-for-whatever-went-wrong" approach.
 
|> The media (unless it is comentary) should just report what is.  It would be nice
|> to hear that "Employment was at 93% today", or "Inflation remained in check again", or
|> "Government stole less money for the workers this month."
|> Fred Seals
|> 409-845-2298

I did not say that the media should report anything but facts.  However, comentators
often go out of their way to appear to be totally neutral, to come down just in the middle,
attacking the Republicans on this and the Democrats on that lest they be accused of
being liberal or conservative.  

There sure are plenty of conservative media people:  Novak, Safire, Will. Buchanan, just
to name a few.  But then there are people like Jennings, Kopel, Zahn, London, Gumbel,
Rather, Walters, etc., who interview political leaders and do not always ask the tough 
questions because they are, I assume, warned by their employers not to appear to favor 
one side or the other.  That results in a watered down interview or report.  I wish they 
would feel a bit freer to express their reaction to the answers they get and to ask the 
really tough questions that often go unasked.

All in all, the media in this country is rather well qualified and does a decent job of
keeping us informed in most cases.  I think that's why they ever so subtly seem to lean 
towards the better ideas.

    Rene J. Valdes             rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.african.american