From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The Biased Media
Date: 23 Jan 93 07:20:01 GMT
 <C15wGv.1qB4@austin.ibm.com> <C189HK.Anu@sugar.neosoft.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <C189HK.Anu@sugar.neosoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

> In article <C15wGv.1qB4@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
> >The PEOPLE had plenty of "help" in making their decision from the
> >media.  Once the primaries were over, the media chose their candidate,
> >and they didn't let anything get in the way of their hardcore constant
> >campaigning for him night and day.  In spite of their overwhelming push
> >for Mr.  Clinton, he still only got 4 out of 10 votes.
> 
> 	Bush ran a horrible campaign. The people believed Clinton was

True.

> the best choice for President. This opinion of the majority of American

4 out of 10, don't forget that.

> voters- you claim that media, and media alone, is responsible? Did

No, I didn't say that.  I said they did everything they could to help him
win.  They helped him execute the fraud that the economy was much worse
that it really was.  That was actually the deciding factor in the election.
What a miracle that the economy was magically fixed the day after the
election!  After the primaries, they let him say almost anything without
fear of contradiction or even questionning.  Meanwhile, Bush was attacked
constantly.

> Bush utilize the debates to effectively disarm any media misrepresentations?

No, he should have, but he didn't.  Bush had everything he needed to win
except one thing - he lacked firm convictions.  When Clinton & Co. attacked
everything he stood for, he mostly just gave half attempts at rebuttal.
Whenever he attacked Clinton, Clinton and the media gave some ridiculous
response like "You attacked my patriotism."  At which point, Bush wilted
for fear of offending liberals who would never vote for him anyway.

Reagan had the same hostile press, but he won twice.  Why?  Because he
BELIEVED in his conservative positions.  He defended them vigorously.
The public believed in them too.  He won.

When challenged, Bush retreated.  Few people want to vote for someone
like that.

Yes, the election result was partly Bush's fault.  I think he could have
won if he tried - in spite of the media.  My point was simply that the
media helped Clinton win.  He could NOT have won without their help.
People generally vote their wallets.  Many people were convinced that
the economy was "worse than it has ever been" even though the facts
do not support that claim.  Why do you think Clinton had the "It's the
economy, stupid" sign on his desk?  He knew he had to convince the voters
that the end was near in order to win.


> Did he use them effectively at all? I thought he did well in #3, but 
> was a joke in #1, and barely better in #2. The same topics that the 
> media represented came up during the debates- was there a media 
> distortion of what actually came out of everyone's mouth? Bottom line:
> Your complaint about the media may be well-founded (though I think not),
> but that complaint is actually directed at the populace. They didn't vote for
> the man you wanted them to. If they didn't vote for him because they
> "bought in" to what the media told them, that responsibility still lies
> with the voters. Your complaint is still about the voters. There are
> alternatives to letting the populace vote. You may well be suggesting we
> utilize one of them. Since you know better than the media, know that they
> did lie and distort their stories to "lead" the voters to the booth,
> I suspect you know what the voters should have believed. I suspect you have a
> suggestion that would lead them to the "right" conclusions. I suspect
> that any suggestion you might have will necessarily be anti-Constitutional.

Ah yes, the ancient liberal tactic of calling anyone who is less liberal a
fascist.  I didn't suggest changing the Constitution.  I didn't even
suggest controlling the media.

The fact remains that the media deliberately aided a political candidate
in deceiving the voters.  You seem to think this is not important.  I
disagree.



> >If I ever again hear anyone in the media laud their own pristine
> >objectivity, I think I'll wretch on the spot.
> 
> 	Are you saying that you reject such, ahead of time, and
> regardless of who in the media makes such a claim? That's a pat
> admission that you won't be objective. Do you really mean that?

Hey, I didn't write that, someone else did.  Pay attention to the attributions.



                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics