From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Campaigns in Republican territory
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:33:00 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep11.181734.162@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:

->You don't know anying about my politics,  and yet you conclude that I am a
->Liberal,  why?  because I dislike George Herbert Hoover Bush.  
->That is my point,  if you want to see the greatest sourse of bias,  the
->greatest skewer of information Stevies I Wonder,  look at your own
->reflection in the monitor screen.

 I am a Conservative and I was slamming Bush real bad earlier in the 
year on talk.politics.misc. Why do you think that if someone dislikes
George Bush that other people will think they are liberal ? I was calling
you a Liberal because you seem to be defending what many Conservatives
beleive is a heavily biased Liberal Press. If I was wrong, I apologize.

->> How
->> do we know that the BOOs actually occurred and where loud, without hear-
->> ing the event for ourselves. Arent you concerned that the entire BOOing
->> incident could have been blown out of proportion by the media. Lets all
->> demand to hear the recording of the BOO's. Lets stop censorship !
->
->What censurship,  I learned that Clinton had been booed on the front page
->of the Chicago Tribune.  I didn't even have to buy the paper I read the
->article at the groocer.  I know that he had a very negative response,  I
->know that a plane flew over head with a anti-Clinton sign on it.  

 Read my above paragraph. How do you know how LOUD he was BOOED, if the
media didnt play the actual sound track ? Why do you take them for their
word ? I actually think the first section of the LA Times is the Comedy
Section. I break out in spontaneous laughter whenever I try to read it.
They spend more time biasing stories then they do reporting stories.
Im sure the Chicago Tribune is different....

->But somehow I have been biased, says Stevie I Wonder,  why because I did
->not "hear" the boos.  That I will be better informed if I know just how
->loud the boos are.  Because I did not hear the boos, if there is a tape of
->them which I don't know,  then I can not comprehend the news situation.

 I dont beleive anything until I have substantial proof. The papers have
printed so many falsehoods over the years that I have lost all credibility
in them.

->Ofcourse in the article there is no report of how loud the boos were,  just
->that Clinton was booed.  It was entirely factual,  how was it "blown out of
->proportion".    

 Dosent the article state that the boos were so loud that you couldnt hear
Clinton speak ? Or was this contained in another article ?
 In my house their is immense laughter when Clinton speaks.

->And you also assert that the present situation is biased towards the
->Democratic side and that the press should change its reporting to favor
->Bush more?

 Be equal with everybody. That would require that the word "Libertarian"
be mentioned more then once a moon phase. It would mean unedited reports
of the candidates like CSPAN has. CSPAN gives equal treatment. It is the
role model for fairness. It will replace the networks political news.

>Once again around and around.  What is the proof that the election polls
>that are being published at this time a biased? 

 Where is the proof that they arent ?
I thought that variance between different polls was a good way to determine
overall accuracy ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh