From: garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM)
Subject: Media Coverage (Re: CNN bias 
Summary: No understanding  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:34:07 GMT

In article <C18Mpx.Gzr@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)                        writes...
>In article <randall.727493157@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>>>Say what?  Donahue, Opra, etc. are conservative?  Sorry.
>>These shows almost never discuss politics.
> 
>They discuss social issues, for the most part, and side with the liberal
>viewpoint.  I wouldn't call castrated men who still fear bicycle bars a
>conservative topic.

I would call it trash.
> 
>>Rush Linbaugh is on more radio stations than anyone else by far.
>>(except for that S-O-C-K-S commercial) George Will appears on TV 
>>more often than any other non-regular commentator.  Cal Thomas is in 
>>an awful lot of newspapers.  Now, name me three liberal commentators who 
>>appear in the media as often as these guys.  
> 
>What we're talking about is MEDIA.  Cal Thomas is a commentator.  PAul Harvey
>starts his program with the phrase "News and comments".  George Will is a
>commentator.  However, Diane Sawyer, Stone Phillips, Sam Donaldson, Cokie
>Roberts, et al all are "supposed" to be reporters.  Their bias comes on 
>full force at times.  The CNN Special Assignments group is supposed to
>investigate all matter of problems, but 99% wind up being something to
>do with the Bush administration and 99% are negative.

That can easily be explained (although I think most people aern't going
to want to believe it since there are a lot of made up minds out there).
Bush was in power. The press is the constitutional watchdog of the government.
Therefore the press was doing their job. It's as simple as that. If 
there are any of you out there old enough to remember, the press ripped
apart Carter just as badly as they ripped apart Bush (I know the Republicans
won't believe me on this, but I'm not addressing this to closed minds),
and Carter didn't have nearly the illegal activity that Bush did.
	Now you say the press is being overly kind to Clinton. You 
are right. They are. Just like they were to Reagan for his first term,
and to Bush for the first two years. For some reason that I can't explain,
the press has a love-affair with a new president when he first comes into
office. IT WILL END! Trust me on this. Before Clinton's first term is
over the press will be all over him like a pack of dogs. This is what
they are supposed to do (they should do it right off the bat).
	The press is supposed to reveal curruption, cover-ups,
scandels, ect. Now class, who does these things? The people in power do.
The people in power are wealthy businessmen, politicians, and the military.
The first one is usually politically conservative. The second has
been politically conservative for the last 12 years. The last has been
politically conservative since the beginning of time. Therefore the press
is usually attacking conservatives. It's not a conspiracy. It's just the
way it is.
> 
>I'm not saying that ALL media reporting is liberal or that ALL media people
>are, just that the overwhelmingly large majority of them ARE.
> 
If you can show me some examples where the media people knowingly left
off then I'll believe you. Otherwise they are just doing there job. And if
they caught Bush and Reagan in scandels then you shouldn't blame the press 
for revieling it (not that I'm saying you are. I'm just making a point).
	O.K. I'm done. Flame away.

-Garrett 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc