From: niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Date: 8 Nov 92 03:04:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov7.100523.147@kenyon.edu> turney@kenyon.edu writes:
>THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON.	

>Consider these points.

>The media went after Clinton in the primary.  He took everything that they
>could throw at him by just smiling and shrugging.  The media then decided that
>since he passed their "rite of passage", he must be the best man.  Since the
>convention - he was protrayed as the winner.  Sam Donaldson even told the
>public that they were stupid if they did not vote for the obvious winner.

I fail to see how Sam Donaldson speaks for "the media."

>Bush, on the other hand, fought back at the media.  In turn, the media
>portrayed him as being behind, in trouble, and having difficulty catching up.
>They sealed the fate of Bush by showing the Iran Contra memo right before the
>election.

He *was* behind.  That's why they portrayed him as being behind.  Geez.

They showed the Iran-Contra memo right before the election because it
was RELEASED (as part of the Weinberger indictment) RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

>Perot would not submit to the media's "rite of passage" and lectured
>them for not doing their job and concentrating only on issues critical to the
>survival of our country - as opposed to issues that improved their ratings and
>revenues.  In turn, the media branded Perot as unstable, paranoid, and crazy.  

No, they portrayed him as unstable, paranoid, and crazy because he's
been a conspiracy theorist for years and just came out with his most
ridiculous conspiracy theory yet.

As for "critical issues," the ONLY issue Perot talked about was the
deficit, and he didn't even do that very well.  He ignored most critical
issues, mostly because he had no plan to deal with them.

>Finally, media polls are self fulfilling prophesies.  Many Americans think for
>themselves, but many in our society are what I call "bandwagon people".  They
>will only support and be part of a "winner".  If you don't believe this, go to
>the football game of a team with a losing record and check the size of the
>crowd.

That's irrelevant.  The fact that people don't feel like watching a team
they know is going to lose doesn't mean they're not thinking.  Do you go
watch awful movies, just to prove you aren't a bandwagon person?  Do you
eat food you don't like?  Of course not.  You eat or watch or vote for
something that's good.  (or less bad than the alternatives.)

The polls report what people think.  Do you have evidence that they
cause people to vote differently, except for strategic voting?

>Showing polls of the "likely voters", 28% of the voters, promoted Clinton as 
>the winner.  Polls of unlikely voters, 72% of the voters, were not shown
>because they did not show Clinton as the winner.  One wonders how the election
>would have ended if Bush or Perot would have been proclaimed as the winner by
>the media causing the hordes of "bandwagon" voters to shift their support.  The
>strong showing of Perot, despite their character assasination campaign, shocked
>the media.  19,000,000 Americans actually thought and acted for themselves!
       
Likely voters are not 28% of voters.  That would be stupid, since many
more people than that vote.   Polls of unlikely voters weren't shown
because the idea of a poll is to give some indication of who is going to
win.  Unlikely voters don't affect that.

And they didn't show polls of likely voters until a few weeks before the
election.  They showed registered voters before that.  And all polls
showed the same thing.  That Clinton was ahead with Perot a distant third.

What you're saying is that if the media lied and said that someone else
was ahead in the polls, someone else might have moved ahead?  Now *that's* 
lying instead of news.

The reason the media was shocked at Perot's showing was that 3rd party
candidates in the past always lost 1/2 their vote in the election booth.
The media assumed that was because of strategic voting, but it seems
that it might have had more to do with the fact that they never had the
money to get their message across at the end of the campaign.

>The media, under the constitution, is free to do what they want - to whom they
>want - with no recourse.  They have abused that privilege in the pursuit of
>profit.  Americans must realize that "news" on the media is no longer "news" - 
>it is "newsertainment".  It is directed to achieve ratings and revenues, not to
>objectively inform the American people on issues critical to our country.  
>Americans, be skeptical of everything you see or hear.

Well, duh.  Anyone who doesn't know this is an idiot anyway.
News has NEVER been news.   And it isn't a "privilege;" it's a right.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,soc.culture.african.american