From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Butchers Facts for his own Agenda
Summary: Media Bias
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:10:28 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1568@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>This "liberal media" thing you Limbots are into is really strange. 
>It's probably true that a plurality of journalists are liberal to some
>extent,

No, a clear majority are liberal (left of center), as shown by any of a
dozen polls over the years.

>but I've seen no evidence that this bias tends to show through in
>their work;

Then you haven't looked.  The evidence is overwhelming and well documented.
See "And That's the Way It Isn't: a reference guide to media bias", by L.
B. Bozell III & B. H.  Baker, 1990.

>in fact, the bias on most editorial pages I've seen around the country
>is right-wing.

When Rush or I, or in fact, most people, talk about media bias, we
aren't talking about the editorial page, or things marked as commentary
or opinion, but rather, what is called "news".  Nor are we talking about
papers around the country, but the major national media.

>This makes sense, when you realize that most publishers and editors
>are Republicans.

Where did you get this idea?  Document it please.

>Has it occured to any of you people that Bush got more negative
>coverage than Clinton because he was an incompetent, do-nothing
>president running a comically inept campaign?

I'll agree with your description of Bush (to some extent) and so would
many conservatives, even in print (see the November 30, 1992 issue of
"National Review", especially the graph on page 40 which show the
unemployment rate was flat at less than 5.5% until Bush breaks his
no-new-tax pladge, when it instantly starts climbing).

>Do you think the press should strive to make both candidates look equal
>even  when one of them isgiving intelligent, well-reasoned speeches 
>and the other is shreiking frantically about "Bozo" and  "The Ozone
>Man"?

No, the press shouldn't be striving to make them look anyway at all. 
They should be simply reporting what they said, or telling us their bias
up front.

While I won't defend Bush's campaign, Clinton's wasn't as intelligent as
you make it sound.

>Face it, gang- The Bush-meister cut his own throat by going stridently
>negative, allowing Clinton to appear more presidential than the
>president, and catering extensively to the worst kind  of far-right
>nutballs- in his rhetoric, at least, if not in his actions.

Who is blaming Bush's loss on the media?  Not Rush.  Not I.

As for your analysis of why Bush lost, if Bush catered extensively to the
far-right, then why were they so unhappy with him?  Remember the primaries?
That wasn't some moderate (which is what Bush is) consistently taking 25%
of the vote from Bush.  It was Pat Buchanan, who has been called many
things, but moderate isn't one of them.  If Bush catered extensively to the
far-right, why did "National Review" have so much bad to say about him.
Read the issue after the 1990 budget deal, or most issues after (e.g.,
"Darman's Disaster -- Bush's Responsibility", National Review, December 17,
1990), especially those during the campaign.  Bush wasn't pleasing the
far-right.

Bush lost because he broke his only specific campaign vow (no new taxes).
He lied and then had the gall to campaign on character.  More generally, in
1988, he campaigned on Reagan's record.  He was going to be Reagan II.  He
didn't govern that way (under Bush, domestic spending increased
drastically, as did government regulation and the number of government
regulators), and it cost him his job.  His campaign boiled down to: he
isn't as bad as the Democrats, and his only pledge or vision of the future
was to do less than what the Democrats wanted to do.  That isn't enough.

>Better luck next time with Kemp, who seems intelligent and thoughtful,
>and should present a much better prospect.

While I would agree, do you think Bush is not intelligent and not
thoughtful?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11237 alt.rush-limbaugh:12808 talk.politics.misc:66024