From: jacksonk@pleiades.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Would you like bacon with your waffles? (was: Re: Gary Trudeau)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnicov Instituteuvic, People's Republic of New York
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:27:21 GMT

In article <bill.724358444@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:

   [regarding Trudeau's <ahem> alleged bias]

>I'm hardly convinced.  First, a fictional television reporter who's
>supposedly in the position of impartial reporting belies that be
>screaming Guilty Guilty Guilty.

huh?

> This is slightly exaggerated from
>the common everyday occurrence where the press does decide that 
>someone is obviously guilty, and stories are carried accordingly,
>with that not too hard to discern that slant (remember how obvious
>the slant was against Saddam Hussein during the gulf war?).

Hmm, so even though this man invaded, plundered, pillaged, murdered,
raped, etc. the press shouldn't judge him?  Are we waiting for a
jury to decide this matter?  You must be careful not to project our
domestic justice system onto international situations.  Perhaps you're
just disappointed that those with whom you disagree with on policy
did something right?  The amount of nitpicking done on this subject
shows the obvious resentment that we fought a justified war and
the detractors of American policy couldn't find anything substantive
to demonstrate the "obvious" evil inherent in U.S. policy.

>If it has to do with countless covered-up charges against the
>Reagan-Bush administration, Congressional corruption, etc, it
>could reflect the frustration of a reporter over seeing good
>investigative work trashed again and again.

Hmm, I'm not aware of charges being brought against administration
officials which were not made public, but then again, I wouldn't
know if they did that, would I?  I take it that you mean covered-up
actions for which they were brought up on charges?  But wait a minute,
are you not making unproven claims by saying this?  Is this not what
you were complaining about the media with Saddam Hussein?

Observations :

1. Mr. Eldridge indicates that the media was biased against Saddam
   Hussein when we watch his forces invade and do horrible things
   on camera.  Somehow it's not OK to malign the name of this ruthless
   dictator by calling him a "ruthless dictator."

2. Mr. Eldridge asserts that these witchhunts started by Democraps
   to "get" Reagan, Bush, and anyone else who dared disagree with them
   on POLICY (!!!) were _GOOD_ investigative work when time and again
   these special prosecutors have brought unprovable charges forth to
   grasp at straws.

3. Mr. Eldridge further asserts that since the <ahem> unbiased reporters
   could so obviously see that administration officials were guilty of
   these charges even though the due process of the US legal system had
   cleared them (failed to prove them guilty => innocent) they were
   justified in judging these officials guilty and indicating so in their
   media coverage.

Is it me or do these statements seem to fail logically?  Perhaps Mr.
Eldridge uses liberal logic, that would explain it.

>And do you think Bush didn't pronounce Noriega guilty ahead of
>time?

Was Noriega given due process once he was in this country?

> Wasn't it Manson who held up a paper at his trial, which
>stated in bold letters "Nixon declares Manson guilty"?

Oh, Charles Manson -- another victim!  Oh my heart bleeds for him!
;^)

>Ahhh, but I'm arguing against a vague example.

And very poorly, I might add.

> Who was guilty?

Only the conservatives, in your opinion.  You'd have Manson walking the
streets, Noriega pumping drugs into our country and making life difficult
for us in Central America, and Saddam Hussein enjoying his kingship over
the majority of OPEC's production.  Pardon me if I don't jump on the
bandwagon with you.

>What was the reference?  What seemed humorous about the
>column, and what was over the line?

I think it would be humorous, but in an ironic way -- the opposite of
what Trudeau intended.  I think it would show his obvious bias and
disdain for the justice process ONLY when it doesn't serve his interests.

>Get specific.  You made a pretty rash charge.

Bahh!!  I think it's as specific as it needs to be to make the point.
The charge, IMHO, is substantiated by his arguments.  Your arguments,
on the other hand seem to waffle all over the place.  Would you like
bacon with your waffles?
-- 
__ __  ____ ______ ______ __  __ 	Keith Jackson
|| // ||    | || | | || | ||  ||
||<<  ||==    ||     ||   ||==||	jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu
|| \\ ||___ |_||_|   ||   ||  ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs