From: gast@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Subject: Re: Nightline and Presidential Cantidates
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 02:06:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.194742.3823@microsoft.com> philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.223449.10798@cs.ucla.edu> gast@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes:

>>As for being anti-Bush, I'd have to disagree.  The spin doctors
>>talk a good game, but the facts speak differently.  The media, for example,
>>covered allegations about Clinton's marital infidelities a lot more than
>>allegations about Bush.

>Might this have something to do with the fact that these "allegations"
>about CLinton were TRUE and the ones regarding Bush were not??  Hmmm??

I don't believe the allegations against Bush were false.  I never heard
anyone in the media claim they were false.  The media by and large just
ignored the issue for Bush.

>>  The media also covered Clinton's draft record in
>>more detail than the economy, any of the major campaign issues, or any of
>>the numerous scandals about Bush.  (See reports by FAIR).

>Puhleeeze!  Reality check here, David!

I am only citing a study.  It is the networks and the spin doctors that
need a reality check.  And yourself!

>Economic reporting has been 90%
>negative during this campaign.

First, I think the economy sucks.  Second, something like 80% of the
voters in exit polls said it was in bad or terrible shape.  (I forget
exactly what the question was).  Third, the reporting was, in my
opinion, more optimistic than warranted.  For example, when the
third quarter GNP figures came out, the media fell all over themselves
reporting how *high* growth was.  Two reality checks for you.  1) The
numbers were doctored.  The revised numbers will almost assuredly be
revised downward.  Even Republican William Safire has said so.  2)
2.9%, the inflated, but reported figure, is not high in any realistic sense. 

>As for the "numerous scandals about Bush", Lawrence Walsh
>spent about $40 million dollars trying to implicate Bush & friends in
>Iran-Contra, and he couldn't.

No, Bushie and friends are in Iran-Contra up to their eyeballs.  Only
the blind cannot see it.

>Except for the politically motivated
>indictment of Cap Weinberger (who hopefully will be pardoned by Bush
>before Slick takes office). 

Hopefully not.
 
>> The media also
>>pronounced Bush the winner of the third debate even though polling data
>>indicated he came in last.  

>I don't know which channel you were watching, but I certainly didn't
>see any of the so-called "experts" proclaim Bush the winner of any
>debate.  I wouldn't mind if they did, anyway, because Bush clearly did
>win the third debate.
 
First, I disagree with your premise that he did win.  Second, correspondents
on PBS and ABC both gave him high marks.  What that means in practice is
that he had the best sound bites.

>Anyway, it is well known that
>most newspapers are owned by wealthy republican men (for example, William
>Randolph Hearst).  Of course, the editorial pages are going to reflect 
>the views of the owner.

Supposedly, there is a wall between the editorial side the and publishing
side.

>The real problem here is that most American's get their information
>from Television, which has been criminally irresponsible in their blatant
>and unapologetic support of Willie. 

You are half right.  The trouble is that people get what little information
they do get from television.  But TV was not supporting Clinton.

>In case you think I'm some right-wing lunatic, let me assure you that
>I did not vote for Bush (or Clinton for that matter).  I voted for the
>only candidate who was willing to tell the truth (and therefore had no
>chance of being elected), Mr. Perot. 

I thought the republicans were saying that Perot was a right-wing lunatic.

david