From: karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik)
Subject: Re: A newcomer to RL has some questions
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:41:49 GMT

In article <mjones.727484295@fenway> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>>francis deck (fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu) wrote:
>
>>: 4. Where can I find examples of this so-called "liberal"
>>:    press?  I recall that most of the major media not only
>>:    gushed over Ronald Reagan, but practically boiled Jimmy
>>:    Carter in oil, so I cannot say they are liberal.
>>The media is plenty negative on Reagan.  As for carter, he deserved
>>everything he got.  As for examples of the "liberal" press, when
>>Bush chooses a subject that he prefers not to be interviewd about,
>>the press hounds him on that subject.
>
>Do you see a pattern here? Looks like the press is pretty rough on whoever's
>in office. Of course, if you believe the right can do no wrong, that
>translates to "liberal", I guess.
>
>>                                       When Clinton did the same thing,
>>they left him alone.  The press never looked at Clinton's record in
>>Arkansas.
>
>And, of course, they never published any of the rumors about Gennifer
>Flowers. I must have dreamed that.

But note WHEN they published those "rumors" - early during the primary when
Clinton was perceived as the least liberal (I just can't bring myself to say
"most conservative") of the candidates.  The press will always go after the
more conservative candidate available.  Later, when it came down to just Bush
and Clinton, the press ignored stories of Clinton giving Gennifer a job that
should have gone to a black woman (just imagine what the press would have done
if such an allegation had been made about Bush).

>They never carried any of the lies about
                               ^^^^
>Clinton going to Moscow that the Bush campaign put out, either. Mass
>delusions, I suppose.

What "lies?"  You mean Clinton didn't go to Moscow?  So then, he was lying
later when he said he DID go to Moscow.  What caused Clinton his trouble
was his continually changing story about where he went and who he met.

>And I must have gotten the information about Arkansas
>chicken farms and polluted streams by telepathy.
>

No, you got it from the Bush ads - the media, just like they did in 1976 with
Jimmy Carter, largely failed in their obligation to investigate Clinton's
record as Governor of Arkansas.

But hey, this is water over the bridge.  Clinton won and he has Democrats
in control of both houses of Congress.  I hope we can all agree that if he
delivers on his promise to get the economy growing and cut the deficit by
half, he and the congress deserve to be reelected.  And, on the other hand,
if he fails, both he and the Democrats in the Congress should be thrown
out and we should try the only combination we haven't seen in 40 years -
Republicans controlling the White House, the Senate and the House of Repre-
sentatives.

Karl Dussik
-- 
"[Objectivity] ruled journalism through most of the campaigns of my lifetime.
But eventually we wised up and dismissed objectivity as a pretentious fantasy
that made stenographers of reporters and produced irresponsible journalism."
Joan Byrd, Washington Post Ombudsman (by Ben Cole, Arizona Republic, 11/18/92)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc