From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101)
Subject: The media IS balanced. Really.
Followup-To: The Liberal sludge of the day.
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet
Keywords: NOT!
Organization: Alcatraz Re-Education Department for Thought Criminals. (Actually, California State University, Sacramento, and I don't speak for them.)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:47:30 GMT



 So the media is balanced in its journalism. If so, then:

 * Why is it that the media let us hear how Anita Hill said she was
not here to profit off the sexual harassment issue, but they aren't
here to investigate how she's making $10,000 appearances around the
country now, talking about it? The media was fast to jump on Jim
Bakker for his lies and cover-ups, yet Anita Hill is doing this openly
and blatantly, and they aren't saying a thing.
 * Why is it that the thousands of journalists in the media, were not
able to notice how the armies of androgynous bra-burners (aka
feminists), church-vandalizers (aka ACT-UP), anti-Semites (aka Jesse
Jackson clones), human-haters (aka Earth First! activists), etc., went
into hiding during this election season? Why is it that the media lay
dumb and ignorant as these people all started coming out, right and
left, to exact their dues from Clinton, after November 3? It took
until late December for the media to even hint at it, and that was
only because the bra-burners were making too loud a stink regarding
Clinton's cabinet choices, for the media to ignore. Of course we all
know why: the media is, with its huge army of investigative
journalists, not capable of discovering things that one man alone,
Rush Limbaugh, was able to predict right after the Democratic National
Convention.
 * Why is it that the media attacked Jesse Helms for trying to remove
NEA funding for a picture of the Crucifix in a bottle of piss, yet if
a similar insult had been laid on the Star of David and it was funded
by the NEA, there would be a flood of charges concerning
anti-Semitism?
 * Why is it that the media attacks anyone who insults a Jewish rabbi,
but totally shrouds over Sinead O'Connor's tearing up of a picture of
the Pope? The media's reaction was so opposite to the People's - the
media ignored it and the People boo'ed her out of a concert and burned
her CD's in a ditch in NYC.
 * Why is it that the media accuses Pat Buchanan of being a racist and
a Nazi, when Pat Robertson has said absolutely nothing racist or
Naziist and there is no evidence that could ever support that claim,
just rumors? Why is it that, in the same breath, the media ignores
comments by folks like Andrew Hackard, who says General Colin Powell
only succeeded because he left "99% of his black self" behind, and the
media tries to help us forget Jesse Jackson's "Welcome to Hymietown"
comments to the Jews in Brooklyn?
 * Why is it that the media gives us occasional propaganda about how
Pat Robertson is a Nazi, but yet they never take such investigative
time out to let us see how Mr. Robertson is running literacy projects
in Georgia that help people with no regards to their race?
 * Why is it that the media went absolutely nuts about stories on
Clarence Thomas when the sexual harassment issue came up, but come Bob
Packwood, the news is just a trickle?
 * And of course, when was the last time you heard the words "Title 10
Regulations" in the media? I bet you probably heard it by what Planned
Parenthood calls it: The "Gag Rule." That's because the media always
terms things or people the way liberals want it termed, not by its
real name or how they term themselves. In general.
 * And then when the Gag Rule was put on abstinence education in New
York City's schools by Chancellor Joe Fernandez, where was the media?
Where is their investigative journalism about this effort by liberals,
feminists (especially feminists!) and AIDS activists, to Gag Rule
abstinence education? Out to lunch, as usual.
 * Where was the media when the Lansing, Michigan State Board of
Education tossed out abstinence education and instead decided to teach
birth control and sexual diseases for kindergarten kids, with a side
comment "please wait for marriage" just to throw in a little
diversity? Where was the media when Board member Annetta Miller called
abstinence education "naive" and said "it's not realistic in today's
age and it was not realistic 100 years ago"? Well, the Sacramento
Union was there, but that's because they're a conservative newspaper.
(Sacramento Union, page A5, 12/17/92.) If abortion counseling had been
treated this way, they'd all be swarming all over the place.
 * Why is it that there was such a huge media stink about sending
troops to Vietnam to stop a civil war (which somehow found our
opposition fueled by Russian-made hardware), yet the media is so
positive about our troops going to deal with a civil war in Somalia?
 * Why is it that the media went crazy about President Bush's
pardoning of Caspar Weinberger and co., over the Iran-Contra scandal?
Where the hell were they when Jimmy Carter pardoned all those
draft-dodgers? Will we see a comparison between the two, or will we
only see the inconsistent and utterly hypocritical evaluation of
America's reviled, GreatDastardlyRepublicanVillain that the media has
been passing off as journalism?


 The answer to all these why's is:
 The media destroys whole forests every year to uncover and make up
big stories of corruption and dangerous thoughts coming from the
Conservative side of America. They inject their own opinions and
predictions into news articles, and pass that off as factual
journalism. They waste tons of trees daily on their editorial pages,
with opinions slamming conservatism, making up scandals and trying to
find a conservative Republican to convict of something, ruining a
quarter of their reputations with facts and the remaining 3/4's with
lies. The media tears down the condition of America so bad that you'd
be hard-pressed to understand what could possibly be drawing more
immigrants to live in the United States, than any other nation in the
world. (We're even getting immigrants from nations that the media say
are better off than we are!) Then the media reports on how the sun is
rising over our economy, the very day AFTER Clinton wins the election.
The media mowed down half a forest on Jim Bakker's sex scandal, yet
with Bill Clinton, they said it was not cool to press the issue of
adultery. The media attacked Dan Quayle for allegedly avoiding service
in Vietnam, even though he DID at least join the National Guard, and
THEN in 1992, they pushed Bill Clinton's draft-dodging aside and said
it "wasn't an issue." And watch what they do to President Bush's
pardoning of the people involved in Iran-Contra, versus Carter's
pardoning of all those draft-dodgers.
 And that's long before Candice Bergen swaggers out of the powder
room with her weekly copy of the "Fuck Fathers! The Daily Radical
Feminist News" - er, um, I mean, her Murphy Brown script - in her
hands.

 And then when someone who supports their causes, fouls up or does
something outrageous, the media is too busy, too ignorant, or too bent
upon covering it up, to report it. It takes something BIG, like,
perhaps, Oregon Senator Bob Packwood, where the media has no choice
BUT to cover it because the whaleshit has hit the turbofan and is now
smelling up all of Oregon. But now, will we see Packwood get the same
treatment as Clarence Thomas did?
 Don't bet on it. The media will protect him, just like they protect
Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, check-bouncers like Barbara Boxer and
anti-disclosure fiends like Barbara Boxer and Tom Foley, the liar
Anita Hill, etc., etc.

 In other words, as you liberals have told us time and again, the
media isn't biased.


  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
	      (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh