Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:02:42 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Man of the Year (was Re: Is the media liberal-biased)
 <randall.726535889@seashore> <43359@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
 <1993Jan12.044846.122@cis.ohio-state.edu>

In article <1993Jan12.044846.122@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) says:

>In article <43359@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

>Excellent point. Most people are unaware the the absolutely HUGE number
>of photos available to TIME and other such publications. The choice of
>expression in such cases is NEVER accidental, although you would be
>very hard pressed to prove: 1) That the choices were deliberate (you would
>have to read the mind of the editor) 2) That they were aware of the
>effect of the choices and 3) That the choices really had a tangible
>impact on the public.

Wait a minute, the selection of photographs by the papers is part of
a conspiracy? Quite frankly it sounds farfetched to me.

Anyway, the selection of photos described above (which I deleted in
the name of space) well, I have seen none of it. By far the vast
majority of photos of Bush _and_ Clinton (and Bar and Hillary, for
that matter) are taken at eye level looking straight forward, at least
the ones I've seen, and good and bad expressions are alloted about equally
to all. (IMHO, neither George Bush nor Hillary Clinton photograph
well -- Bush always looks upset and Hillary always has some goofy look
on her face. Oh well, them's the breaks.)

>>About this man of the year choice. Give me a break. Clinton hasn't
>>even wiped his but in the oval office head, and he is man of the year?
>>He has an overriding 'mandate' with 41% of the popular vote (the same
>>percentage that Dukakis lost with 4 years ago)? He has yet to take
>>office, and his 'governing style' has already been compared (in a
>>major article) to Lincoln?

While I will agree (gasp) that the media are being very nice to Clinton
right now (as they were to Bush around this time four years ago -- they
ate up all that "kinder, gentler" stuff) I would point out that he has
been Governor of an entire state for well over a decade. One would think
this might provide some clues to his governing style.

>Well, frankly, TIME bases its choice on who was most influencial in shaping
>the news that year, and is not a selection of who is a good role model.
>Past winners include Adolf Hitler and (I think) Joseph Stalin, hardly good
>role models.

True. Normal operating procedure.

>However, TIME should realize how people perceive their selection
>as opposed to its stated criterion, and either begin selecting good role
>models as opposed to simply news makers (but, of course, TIME would have
>to show its hand (i.e. its biases) to do that) or else drop it entirely.

Why should TIME do what you say? They're making good money now.

>They claim, however, that it is a good selling point, though I think it
>serves no purpose other than that if they are true to the criterion. I
>mean, who cares who TIME thinks is the year's biggest news story?

If the issue is "a good selling point" then obviously lots of people care.
Where's your faith in the free market?

>I also highly question the media's love affair with Socks.  I mean, really!
>No one cared about the presidential dogs unless they did something
>significant,
>like get sick, or have its ears pulled. For God's sake, what has Socks done??

Ahem. Are you telling me that Millie the Presidential dog has gotten no
attention these last few years? At least Socks hasn't written a bestselling
book. Yet...

>For me, however, the clearest indication of media bias was what they
>considered news during the election. Did we hear anything more about Clinton's
>draft dodging? Or Jennifer Flowers?

We heard tons and tons about it earlier in the year. The media tore into
Clinton with a frenzy. How quickly we forget, in order to preserve cherished
illusions such as the Liberal Media Conspiracy, eh?

Perhaps if any new and real information, as opposed to GOP rumormongering,
had come out, then maybe there would have been a fuss. Oh, and incidentally,
Gennifer Flowers (with a G, the Jennifer with a J is Bush's...) DID get on
one of the talkshows that are supposedly part of the Liberal Media Conspiracy.
And she got into, what was it, Penthouse? (Another bastion of evil liberalism,
of course.) Americans glanced, and as a one yawned and changed the channel.

Face the facts. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT ALL THE SLEAZEMONGERING.
The American people cared about the ISSUES, and SOLUTIONS. Clinton had 'em.
Bush didn't. End of story. You get your next chance in '96.

>No, it was all Iran-Contra and whether
>Bush knew about it or not.  And I STILL think the timing of the indictment
>was significant. The indictment was so full of holes it was thrown out only
>three weeks later.

I've read lots of messages about Iran-Contra here... let me get this straight,
you think that:

1. Selling arms to a country on our list of known terrorist nations, that
was actively hostile to the US, and doing this in violation of the law,

2. Funneling the profits through secret organizations (that were not legally
franchised to do anything of the sort) to fund the Contras, again in express
violation of the law (the Boland Amendment),

3. Repeatedly lying to Congress (which is also illegal) in order to cover the
whole sordid mess up,

is not wrong? Why not?

And please, don't bother to bring up the House Bank scandal, in which no
laws whatsoever were broken despite certain folks' repeated assertions to the
contrary.

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

Think locally, act globally.               Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton