From: garrett@Ingres.COM (TRUTH IS. BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED.)
Subject: Re: Media Coverage (Re: CNN bias
Summary: Point/Counterpoint  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:34:58 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan27133107@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)                            writes...
><In article <1993Jan26.015640.14057@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM) writes:
><In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan24150646@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)                                    writes...
><><In article <1993Jan22.053408.16056@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM) writes:
><><If you can show me some examples where the media people knowingly left
><><off then I'll believe you. 
><> 
><>	Remember Representative Jim Wright of Texas? He virtually
><>	singlehandedly created the S&L problem in Texas by preventing
><>	Federal regulators from closing down insolvent S&L's. 
><>	The press played softball with him even after he resigned
><>	in disgrace. Oh, but he's a Democrat.
> 
><I'll give you a counterpoint. How about the CIA/Contra involvement in the
><S&L scandel. Did you know that the CIA had billions in those same S&L's that
><were on their way to the Contras? Oh, but the Contra's are Republican. 
> 
>	This was covered on several TV expose shows.

I'll call you on this one. What TV exposes? Now I don't watch TV much,
but the only way I found out about it is through the alternative press.
> 
>	It in no way contradicts the charge that the "unbiased"
>	press played softball with Mister Wright. Where were
>	the calls for a trial? Where were the charges of corruption?

I see you deleted the part of my earlier post where I make the statement
that it isn't up to the press to "call" for anything (outside of the editorial
page). To call for anything in their reporting is to commit the crime that you
are accusing them of, biased reporting. Their job is to report the news, not
judge the news.
 Now if you are talking about news
shows like "crossfire" and such, then that is a different area. Of course,
I've seen Crossfire, and I can safely say that Rush Lameboy is more liberally
biased.
 As for charges of corruption. They reported that he committed a felony.
To charge corruption would be redundant, don't you think?
> 
><>	The House Post Office is being investigated by FBI for
><>	money-laundering, fraud and a few other quaint things.
><>	Where are the headlines? Oh, but it's been run by Democrats
><>	since Eisenhower's first term. 
> 
><Another counter-example. The Justice Department's involvement in the Inslaw
><case. That scandel has been vastly under-reported. Oh, but the Justice
><Department is Republican.
> 
>	How "vastly" under-reported is it? Have you seen *ANY*
>	newspaper stories or TV newscasts on the House Post
>	Office?

Where have you been? Stories about corruption were splashed across the 
headlines for at least a month. I got sick of reading about the same 
old corruption day-after-day. 
> 
>	Heck, I've even seen REPUBLICAN pundits denouncing 
>	the Inslaw case; even Bill Buckley denounced it.
> 
But I never heard about it until months after the events happened. And 
that was only through the alternative press. It took many months after that
before the mainstream press picked it up.
If you were paraniod then you might say that they only 
reported it, because the story refused to go away.

>	Sorry, the charge stands.

Sorry, your charge doesn't stand.
> 
><>	Zoe Baird is guilty of a Federal FELONY; she and her husband
><>	properly should be indicted and tried on Federal Tax Fraud
><>	charges; if she was a Bush appointee-to-be, the "unbiased"
><>	media would have been demanding same (remember John Tower?).
><>	Instead, every news story I've seen or read has been
><>	utterly sympathetic.
> 
><I have'nt seen any sympathetic stories. 
> 
>	Oh, please, the TV shows have been full of "everyone's
>	doing it" as a defence
>	On the editorial page, try Ellen Goodman and Anna Quindlen.

Two points to address. 
1) You aern't accusing the reporting of being biased. This is the grounds
   for your whole arguement.
2) The editorial page is the area for opinions. If this is all you have then
    you don't have anything (on this point).
> 
><Perhaps you are just looking for a
><bias. 
> 
>	Does that make me guilty of "thoughtcrime", yet?

Don't start trying to put words in my mouth. I've got nothing against 
"looking for something". I do have something against somebody saying that
they found something and then not being able to prove it.
> 
><But I still owe you a counter-example.
><Of course. The biggest one. The Persian Gulf War. The media bent over backwards
><in order to portray this as a "just war". It wasn't until the troops were 
><already home did they start looking into it, and realized that those "smart"
><bombs weren't so smart. And that Bush had armed Hussein, 
>	
>	Ok, hold it right there. Bush armed Hussein? With what?
>	Hussein's tanks, artillery, small arms...his entire army's
>	supply of machines were and are mainly Soviet in manufacture.
>	His aircraft were French and Soviet, his 'navy' was Soviet
>	and European in manufacture....and you're claiming the
>	big lie that BUSH supplied all of this?

Perhaps you missed the BIG story just before the election, where Bush claimed
that we didn't fight ANY of our own equiptment in the Gulf War, and then the
inspectors came out and said yes we did. For someone who is judging the news
you seem to have overlooked a very big story. Bush's aids were trying to put
out the fire from that for days.
	Also, where do you think Saddam got the money to buy all that
equiptment? Ever heard of the BNL scandel? In case you haven't, it's where
an American based bank, at the urging of the State Department, illegally 
loaned Iraq 3 Billion dollars in loans that everyone knew he couldn't pay
back. Then the Justice Department, CIA (and maybe Bush himself) tried to
cover it up. 
	Then we have the agricultural loans that the Agricultural Dept.
knew were being used to buy military equiptment with and the Bush 
administration ignored. It seems you have some homework to do.
> 
>	This isn't about bias, this is about hallucinations.

Only if the truth is a hallucination.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is now proved beyond a doubt                              Garrett Johnson
that smoking is one of the leading                        Garrett@Ingres.com
causes of statistics.                                        Alameda, Calif.
  :^) We're making progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate.:-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70275 talk.politics.medicine:750 soc.culture.usa:10238