From: garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM)
Subject: Re: Media Coverage (Re: CNN bias
Summary: Another view  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:56:40 GMT

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. 
>	
>	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.
> 
>	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. Perhaps you are just looking for a
bias. 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, and gave him plenty
of money in bad loans, even though he knew he was a butcher. This was at least
a year later. And don't even get me started on Panama.
> 
>	And these are just off the top of my head, mind you...

So were mine.
> 
><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.
> 
>	And when the press finally admits that Baird commited
>	a FELONY, they brush it under the rug with a mumbled
>	comment such as,"Oh, well, everyone's doing it".
>	No, not everyone is evading Federal FICA taxes....sorry
>	about that, media drones.

I won't argue with you there (suprise?). But they covered it. That's the
difference. They are not in the business to "call" for anything (unless
it's on the editorial page). Because they are not being cheerleaders, or
prosecutors, that is not a weakness, that is a strength. The only time the
media really f***s up is when they DON'T cover something. Then they are
self-censoring. You are supposed to decide where you stand *yourself*.
 If you'll notice the examples I gave were issues that they
under-reported. This is when the media isn't doing its job. This is when
you should have a gripe. Not when they don't slant the coverage the way
you want it.

-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70514 alt.activism:21517