From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Rush Butchers Facts for his own Agenda
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:34:34 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>>This "liberal media" thing you Limbots are into is really strange. 
>>It's probably true that a plurality of journalists are liberal to some
>>extent,
>
>No, a clear majority are liberal (left of center), as shown by any of a
>dozen polls over the years.

Yes, several polls have shown that the PERSONAL preferences of many
people who work in the media can be considered as liberal. So?

>>but I've seen no evidence that this bias tends to show through in
>>their work;
>
>Then you haven't looked.  The evidence is overwhelming and well documented.
>See "And That's the Way It Isn't: a reference guide to media bias", by L.
>B. Bozell III & B. H.  Baker, 1990.

If you look for bias you are going to find it, both liberal bias and
conservative bias. There are studies from opposing media watchdog groups
which show how the media is biased. One group shows how it is biased to
the left and the other shows how it is biased to the right. And BOTH
groups are RIGHT.

Most of the media people I listen to appear to be able to leave their
personal feelings at home when they are on the job.

>>Do you think the press should strive to make both candidates look equal
>>even  when one of them isgiving intelligent, well-reasoned speeches 
>>and the other is shreiking frantically about "Bozo" and  "The Ozone
>>Man"?
>
>No, the press shouldn't be striving to make them look anyway at all. 
>They should be simply reporting what they said, or telling us their bias
>up front.

That's exactly what I saw from most mainstream media, the reporting of
the truth, whether you like what the truth was or not.

>While I won't defend Bush's campaign, Clinton's wasn't as intelligent as
>you make it sound.

While you may not think so, all of the pundits I heard (from both sides)
complemented Clinton on the way he conducted his campaign. I even heard
one comment (don't remember who) which said he felt that the way Clinton
conducted his campaign is the primary reason why he won the election.

>Who is blaming Bush's loss on the media?  Not Rush.  Not I.

Rush (and others) are saying that the positive media coverage of Clinton
helped him win the election. How is this different from not blaming Bush's
loss on the media?

>As for your analysis of why Bush lost, if Bush catered extensively to the
>far-right, then why were they so unhappy with him?  Remember the primaries?

Primaries, smimaries. Cut to the chase and look at the election day data.
The far-right voted solidly for Bush. In fact, that was the largest block
of conservative vote he got! Many of the registered Republicans I heard
interviewed who planned to vote for Clinton said they had left Bush after
the Convention which appeared to be a revival meeting.

>Bush lost because he broke his only specific campaign vow (no new taxes).
>He lied and then had the gall to campaign on character.

Yes, that certainly cost him some votes, but I don't think it was the
sole reason why he lost. (I know you didn't say "sole reason", but I get
that from implication.)

>>Better luck next time with Kemp, who seems intelligent and thoughtful,
>>and should present a much better prospect.
>
>While I would agree, do you think Bush is not intelligent and not
>thoughtful?

To me, the comment does not imply that Bush is not intelligent or thoughtful,
just that Kemp is. (Which I don't necessarily agree with, myself.)

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion