From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias? YOU Decide. Resumes Tell All
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:29:04 GMT
 <1992Nov20.220448.288@hsh.com> <1992Nov21.061953.23085@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov21.061953.23085@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>
>>The fact is that Clinton's assertions on "the worst economy in 50 years" could
>>have been flatly contradicted by any Joe Reporter with a dime-store almanac. 
>>Why did the media take these statements at face value?  The so-called 'media
>>truth squads' tore Bush's statements apart, while completely ignoring this and
>>other Clinton prevarications; the Wall Street Journal *did* consult an almanac, 
>>and promptly labelled it "the worst lying about the economy in 50 years." Some
>>attention was paid to Quayle's charge that Gore's book called for $100 million
>>in environmental spending.  Gore denied it, and the media bought it -- but
>>those who read the book know that Quayle didn't invent that figure.  In fact,
>>Quayle offered proof to the media of all of the charges he made against Gore --
>>where did it appear?  (A rhetorical question, indeed.)  Larry King successfully
>>ambushed Bush on his show by giving Clinton's communications director a private
>>line to call in on -- and then denied it, even as his producer admitted it. 

> 	Sorry, can't let this one pass.  The  *fact* is that Quayle claimed
> that Gore had called on the USA to spend $100 million on environmental cleanups,
> which was an outright lie.  Gore's book suggests that the amount necessary
> would be on the order of what was spent on the Marshall Plan after WW II, which
> would have been about $100 million in contemporary dollars.  He goes on to say
> that the USA could not possibly pay for all that alone and, in *fact*, calls
> for a consortium of nations to foot the bill.

Yes, you're right on this ONE example; I shouldn't have gone on & on after a
13-hour shift.  However, I note that you've "passed" on the many others in my
original post. 

> 	If this is your idea of "truth" then you're right...further discussion
> is quite impossible and I see no point in it at all.  It's becoming rather
> obvious to me that to those on the political fringes, the myth of a monolithic
> media establishment biased against their cause is an essential article of
> faith; a positive sine qua non for the maintenance of the proper siege
> mentality.  An "iron ring" of enemies (to quote another fringe political
> leader from the past..) is necessary to keep the faithful..well...faithful.

Well, goddamn!  You've managed to twist my point, label me a "fringe," ignore 9
out of 10 points that you won't -- or can't -- discuss, AND toss in some
downright insulting allusions, all while claiming the high ground.  Based on
our earlier exchanges, I was hoping for better from you, Chuck -- but
apparently I hit a nerve that kicked you into some sort of knee-jerk ad hominem
attack mode.  But, in your favor, you did it MUCH more eloquently than the
usual "well, f*ck you!" response that is typical of the less endowed.  Well
done! 

------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."