NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/politics/misc/70122

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70122 alt.president.clinton:1859
Path: sparky!uunet!opl.com!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!nmsu.edu!opus!ataylor
From: [e-mail] (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Media Coverage (Re: CNN bias
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:31:07 GMT
References: <randall.726535889@seashore> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Lines: 78
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 26 Jan 93 01:56:40 GMT

<In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM) writes:
<In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nosy)                                    writes...
<><In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM) writes:
<><If you can show me some examples where the media people knowingly left
<><off then I'll believe you.
<>
<>    Remember Representative Jim Wright of Texas? He virtually
<>    singlehandedly created the S&L problem in Texas by preventing
<>    Federal regulators from closing down insolvent S&L's.
<>    The press played softball with him even after he resigned
<>    in disgrace. Oh, but he's a Democrat.

<I'll give you a counterpoint. How about the CIA/Contra involvement in the
<S&L scandel. Did you know that the CIA had billions in those same S&L's that
<were on their way to the Contras? Oh, but the Contra's are Republican.

    This was covered on several TV expose shows.

    It in no way contradicts the charge that the "unbiased"
    press played softball with Mister Wright. Where were
    the calls for a trial? Where were the charges of corruption?

<>    The House Post Office is being investigated by FBI for
<>    money-laundering, fraud and a few other quaint things.
<>    Where are the headlines? Oh, but it's been run by Democrats
<>    since Eisenhower's first term.

<Another counter-example. The Justice Department's involvement in the Inslaw
<case. That scandel has been vastly under-reported. Oh, but the Justice
<Department is Republican.

    How "vastly" under-reported is it? Have you seen *ANY*
    newspaper stories or TV newscasts on the House Post
    Office?

    Heck, I've even seen REPUBLICAN pundits denouncing
    the Inslaw case; even Bill Buckley denounced it.

    Sorry, the charge stands.

<>    Zoe Baird is guilty of a Federal FELONY; she and her husband
<>    properly should be indicted and tried on Federal Tax Fraud
<>    charges; if she was a Bush appointee-to-be, the "unbiased"
<>    media would have been demanding same (remember John Tower?).
<>    Instead, every news story I've seen or read has been
<>    utterly sympathetic.

<I have'nt seen any sympathetic stories.

    Oh, please, the TV shows have been full of "everyone's
    doing it" as a defence

    On the editorial page, try Ellen Goodman and Anna Quindlen.

<Perhaps you are just looking for a
<bias.

    Does that make me guilty of "thoughtcrime", yet?

<But I still owe you a counter-example.
<Of course. The biggest one. The Persian Gulf War. The media bent over backwards
<in order to portray this as a "just war". It wasn't until the troops were
<already home did they start looking into it, and realized that those "smart"
<bombs weren't so smart. And that Bush had armed Hussein,

    Ok, hold it right there. Bush armed Hussein? With what?
    Hussein's tanks, artillery, small arms...his entire army's
    supply of machines were and are mainly Soviet in manufacture.
    His aircraft were French and Soviet, his 'navy' was Soviet
    and European in manufacture....and you're claiming the
    big lie that BUSH supplied all of this?

    Please explain how Bush was able to ship Soviet T-72's,
    Soviet small arms, South African artillery, French and
    Soviet jets to Iraq.


    This isn't about bias, this is about hallucinations.