From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Media Bias?????
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:00:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.154013.4902@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|> 
|> In dpage@ra (Doug Page) writes:
|> 
|> > Perhaps Barbara Bush hit the nail on the head the best the other night while
|> > being interviewed by PBS/NBC coverage when the question of media bias came up.
|> > Mrs. Bush asked the interviewer where the press was defending the President
|> > during the Democrat Convention.  The interview was left momentarily speechless
|> > because she knew that Mrs. Bush was right.
|> 
|> Actually I thought Judy was more taken aback that Barbara would make such
|> an unfounded allegation.  Instead of talking about the issues, Barbara 
|> attacks the reporter for asking questions.  Judy is then put in the
|> position of defending PBS coverage (allowing Barbara to change the subject
|> and not answer tought questions) or go on with the interview (leaving the
|> allegation of biased coveraged unanswered).  Judy tried to remain professional
|> and continue the interview and at least one viewer was left with the impression
|> that the unfounded allegation of biased reporting is true.
|> 
|> It's a classic Republican trick: when the questions get tough, attack the 
|> interviewer.  And some people are gullible enough to fall for it.
|> 

The fact of the matter is that Clinton's campaign has dodged more than the
Republicans have.  The reference that I made at the end of my comments is a
virtual quote of the script that Clinton's campaign has been using to dodge 
the issues most of this week.  Clinton's campaign manager used it two nights
ago (8/18), Clinton's director of communications used it night before last
(8/19), and Clinton used it yesterday morning.  Sometimes the questions
related to what Clinton and his wife had or had not said about being "two-for-
the-price-of-one" or "co-presidents", sometimes the questions were regarding
Clinton's environmental record, and other times the questions related to the
real cost of Clinton's universal health plan.  In each case, each of the 3 men
responded with the following script:

    "Can't you see what they're doing; they're obviously desperate.  They refuse
    to talk issues.  Instead they insist on these personal attacks, attacking
    me,  attacking my family.  They say that they're not going to engage in
    sleazy politics.  You have to forgive them, that's all they know how to do.
    Now let's get to the facts."  ___________________ *

 * Fill in the blank here with what thay wanted to say -  usually comments
   about how evil it was to attack Clinton's wife.

The media then continued on without skipping a beat, just as if they had
answered the question.  If Barbara Bush side steps a question by asking
questions that many Americans are asking.  I work with people who range from
liberal (as in Ted Kennedy looks conservative by comparison) to conservative
(~Pat Buchanan) and, without exception, they have noted the "script" that
the Clinton camp has been using and the fact that they have been getting away
with it.  Clinton's campaign appears to have overexposed its tactics (for
this week at least).  To claim that Barbara Bush's "allegations" are unfounded
is ludicrous.  If the Republicans stuck to the issues and discussed the
issues, which DO include Clinton's record (good or bad),  the Democrats have
called it 'sleazey' campaigning and the media has jumped on the
Democrat bandwagon.  If, on the other hand, the Democrats talk about Bush's
record, it has been treated as fair game (as it should be, I might add but
ONLY if Clinton's record is discussed as well).

It's also interesting to note that the reviews of the Bush and Quayle
speeches last night on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and PBS were a function of the
polls.  The higher Bush was in the polls on a given network, the better the
reviews were on that network.  Perhaps ratings (even when they are expected to
be low) may be driving the networks' manipulation of the viewers.  After all,
when it comes down to "who do you trust?", Bush's one "lie" pales in
comparison to Slick Wille's creative view of the world, history, and the truth.


** The opinions are my own, they do not represent those of my employer, nor **
** those of anyone else.                                                    **
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh