From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:04:23 GMT

larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:

>FYI, old buddy, I not only saw the speech, I taped it and re-looked at the
>video after reading your post. Obviously, you cannot possibly know what I 
>did or didn't watch. You're resorting to wild assumption. Again.

You don't mention whether you taped NBC's coverage of Buchanan's speech
in all this ranting.  That *was* the topic, afterall.  

>I taped six hours of CNN coverage on it yesterday morning, and another six
>hours of it last night, including Bush's major speech. For every one of
>these imagined evil liberal media manipulations of video, I can show you
>examples of positive takes, showing many "average" people doing things
>like cheering the president ("Yeh! Get'em George!"), nodding their heads
>in approval, praying, standing to applaud, and wiping tears from their eyes.

It will do you no good to tell me that positive accounts from the
convention are indeed shown.  I have never stated otherwise.  The case
of putting a shot of Quayle up for a lengthy duration during the draft-
dodger segment is not comparable to showing crying and cheering fans,
though.  Unlike all the other video shots during speeches which focused
on women while the speech mentioned them, or Blacks while the speech 
mentioned them, etc., or crowd reactions, this shot was completely
a whim of the producer.  Buchanan was making no mention of VPs, Quayle,
or anything remotely resembling Quayle.  He was most certainly making
his opinion known, by bringing to everybody's attention his contention that
Quayle was just as guilty of draft-dodging. 

>Your yirning accounts of media bias are another crock. Just because 
>you and your ilk agree to cry in your beer in unison, doesn't make
>something a hard fact.

I appeal to your better nature and ask you to keep the discussion civil.

>If the New Right could stop whining long enough to discuss real issues, 
>the Repubs might well get some votes lined up.

We don't seem to have had much problem with that in the past...


By the way, not being one to let people forget their own arogance, I dug
up a statement you made a couple of days ago:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all. What we have here is another Liberal Conspiracy at work,
wherein the camera man (more likely the producer) was so well coached as
to know exactly when to smoothly insert Dan Quayle's image. (They're good,
aren't they?) Unless someone managed to get an advance copy of Buchanan's
speech somehow, their timing was impeccable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody who has watched much of either convention knows that the media
*does* in fact get advance copies of every speech.  Last night you no
doubt heard them telling us that Bush's speech was "embargoed"--they were
not given an advance copy.  And the camera shots were noticeably slow to
react to speech topics.  


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502