Discussion: The Media

This is an archived discussion. To return to the active discussion, use your browser's back button.

[Sign Up] \Previous\ [Next] [Related Discussions] [Tools] [Guidelines] [Help]
[Switch to Table View]

Howard Kurtz: Archived Notes 5/96-7/11/96

Modified By:Andy Modified On:October 26, 1996 05:16 PM

In case you're not familiar with his work, take a look at Howard Kurtz's recent articles by clicking on the attached link below.

In your opinion, how important is it for the media to dig-up the 'flaws' in character of presidential candidates. I'm distinguishing here 'flaws' that are criminal in nature, eg, having been involved in an insider trading scam, to that of personality, eg, infidelity. My point is that in an imperfect world while we all love to have leaders who are absolutely clean-cut and dynamic, we are hardly going to find them these days. What price leadership? Effectiveness as a national leader or a good man who cannot give direction to the nation. They may not be mutually exclusive but there seems to be a trend where effective leaders are full of faults, eg, from egomania, womanising, and a tendency to lie (so what's new), eg, FDR, JFK, LBJ. Is it better to persecute these men who could/are effective leaders and lose them in the process or keep searching for the perfect leader and thereby probably end up with lukewarm or ineffective ones.

 Reading "Character Above All" and anthology of pieces on presidential character and leadership edited by Robert Wilson has made me think about theseissues again. 

 Howard Kurtz 

 I don't think much of the media, print or television. It fails 

 First bias: On any given day, in any newspaper or television 

 Ambiguity: I am sick and tired of reading or hearing expressions 

 Verbosity: Every story that I read has the same information on 

 Lack of detail: Every time that Congress or the President 

 And of course there are those panel news shows on Friday nights. 

I am 43 years old and remember Watergate well. I'm am terribly afraid that the 400+ files were obtained to cover a search on Billy Dale. I hope I am wrong, but would hope that the Media would keep vigilance on this story to ease my mind. Sharyn Jacob, sharick@fuse.net

Secondly, 43% of Americans voted for Clinton, 40% for Bush, and 17% for Perot. If diversity is good, then where is it in the Washington Press?

There was a recent example where both the Congress and White House were in favor of bill to require portability of health care coverage from job to job. The Republicans in Congres word like the final bill to also include provisions for Medical Saving Accounts (MSA). This is a legitmate matter for debate. Both sides have a case to be made for or against MSAs.

However, everyone kept refering to a bill without MSA as a "clean" bill. I submit that the use of the term, whether intentionally or not, frames the debate in a way which favors the White House. The opposite of "clean" is "dirty". Who would want a "dirty" or unclean bill?

If the press had refered to a bill with MSA as "comprehensive" or "complete," it would have been unfair in the other direction.

The media needs to be careful about the lazy use of pejorative terms.

My other pet peeve is about the use of the term "extremist." Extremism is defined with respect to the viewer. When was the last time when a elected president was to the left of the personal positions of the national media? Maybe Johnson? If this is true, the national press can be empirically considered out of the main stream and might fairly be called "extremist."

I hope the use of such terms is sloppy as opposed to deliberate. My general rule is never to asssume maliciousness when incompetence is a sufficient excuse.

Regards, Frank Monaldo

PS Check out: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Frank_Monaldo/

I find this argument pretty funny. Today, most media outlets are owned by major corporations. They've got nothing better to do than give whiny liberal journalists jobs. It's a sure way to maximize profits!

Todd Epp

Sam Donaldson made a valiant effort this morning to explain the event, but completely bollixed the story. Bob Schieffer several times referred to the "psychic advisor" of Hillary's, and Ron Brownstein commented on the "seances" conducted in the White House. Panetta was clearly uncomfortable.

Can we expect more talk like this, or will Hillary put a hex on the White House Press Corps?

What troubles me about the seances, xfiles, burnedchurches is how long the stories drag on before the dispositive material comes out. Just this past week, Diane Rehm, a syndicated NPR personality, with the hauter and scorn so typical of elite media, dismissed one of her callers who wished to question the 1st lady's spiritualist escapades. Rehm claimed there had been no such seances. Now, days later, the Post and other media sources document such sessions. Who is misleading whom.

The preliminary facts are incomplete, and are labled "inconsequential" by apologists---or this year marginalized as "political smear"; but then the full facts dribble out over weeks or months. However the "inconsequential" tag, applied earlier, confuses people (including many journalists) who have not followed closely the entire story. This is happening too often....it appears to be news management on someone's part....either Press specialists in the administration or editors elsewhere.

The burned churches is another example. Some journalists jumped to lable these events as obvious racial incidents....yet the facts have not yet, according to Janet Reno, demonstrated this allegation. Meanwhile the President is claiming they were "clearly" racial hate crimes. However, statistically, until the past 10 days, the excess number of fires over a typical 18 month period, was inconclusive. It is the incendiary media coverage ITSELF, over the past two weeks, that has fueled the copy-cat incidents......yet the self-righteous journalists responsible, will scoff at accepting any burden of guilt in this matter at all.

Call it spin, or call it partisan editing, or call it perception management, it is confusing many people, who react with alienation, cynicism, and growing distrust. Careful readers know hidden agendas are out there, and that they are as likely to come from the journalists and editors as from the sources. Mr. Kurtz, this problem is real, and growing.

While I have tremendous respect for Mr. Woodward and his work, I can't help but wonder if there is not a small conflict of interest in the Post using the excerpts to sell papers, which generates controversy and questions about the issues raised in the excerpts, which will lead to curious Washingtonians flocking to their local Barnes & Noble to buy Bob's book in bulk. As a marketing plan, it's brilliant. But from a journalistic point of view, I question the motives somewhat. SCG

As for the FBI files issue, yes the Post has been giving increasing coverage to the issue lately, however, the tone of the articicls is nowhere near as critical as they would be under a Republican president (rember the "sleaze factor" constantly written and editorlized about during Regan's second term?

________ "A quick note on The Washington Post, which is less liberal in its editorialpolicy than many folks outside our circulation area realize. --------

I reside in the circulation area and read the Post daily, while it may be less liberal (socialist leaning) than some outside the circulation area realize, it definitely leans more towards a socialistic stance than the general public (if one believes in polls). How many times has the Post used the terms ‘Left leaning extremists’ in news articles or how about ‘hard left’. Also why use the term concervative to describe people against all these Federal programs, I thought a conservative was someone who was trying to protect the status quo (This would describe the socialist leaning Democrats). And why has the Post writers decided to label the communist factions in Russia as hard right or concervatives instead of hard left and liberal?

___________ "The paper has repeatedly criticized Clinton over Whitewater and for demagoguing the Medicare issue. The proof: Post editorials were favorably cited on television by Bob Dole, Al D'Amato and Haley Barbour, a fact I reported in the Post at the time." -----------

What the Post has criticized is the Clinton's stonewalling on the release of documents. The Post has seldom if ever criticized there actions during Whitewater, here they simply state that there is no "smoking gun". Why is it that the Post requires a "smoking gun" when it's a Democrat that is president but not when a Republican is president.

The media has written much about the anti-abortion plank in the Republican platform and whether or not the Republican's will allow people with differing views in their party. It was the Democrats (during the 92 convention) that did not allow dissenting views concerning abortion, why hasn't the press been talking and writing about the Democrats refusal to allow disenting views? Will the Democrats allow the anti-abortionists in their party to speak at the 96 convention? (And before I'm labled too quickly, I'm pro-choice!)

During the 70's the media decided that since total objectivity was not attainable they would no longer try to be objective, in the future they were going to be "fair" in their reporting. How one can be fair without being objective was never explained. This was simply another way of using meaningless terms to protect their own biases. With the poll showing the vast majority of the "mainstream" media to be self-described liberals the media is saying 'yes, but we put aside our personal biases when we are reporting', this of course is a description of objectivity which the media previously said they would no longer attempt to meet.

You claim that the 104th Congress is composed of right-wing (What pray tell does this mean) millionaire corporate lawyers. How many members of the house are Corporate Lawyers and how many of those are millionaires (please cite sources)?

You say that they rushed in with appalling arrogance, this of course is a matter of perspective and not productively argued.

You say that they didn’t deal with long term fiscal problems in the form of middle class entitlements and enormous amounts of corporate welfare. It was the Republicans that attempted to do something about one of the "middle class entitlements", Medicare and Medicaid, it was the Democrats that refused to deal with this long term problem and rather preferred to use it as a partisan fear issue. While I don’t totally agree with some of the specifics of the Medicaid/Medicare proposals and I definitely did not agree with the tax cut (at least until the deficit was not only eliminated but some of the national debt was paid off) they did attempt to deal with one of the entitlements. The Democrats on the other hand used it for short term partisan advantage and ensured that no one will touch any of the entitlement programs anytime in the near future. To give credit where credit is due, the Post editorial pages made some of the same arguments.

I do not fault the media with taking a critical look at any policy, in fact I would probably argue that is one of the main purposes of a free news media. What I do fault is selective criticism and reporting that is biased by one’s own personal stances to an inordinate degree. While it is true that no person can be totally objective it is my opinion that the majority of reporters (that I have read) try very little to be objective.

I never said that I thought the press should be calling for President Clinton’s impeachment, this again is one of your strawmen not one of my statements.

In regards to Iran Contra I would suggest that the Iran Bosnia issue would be more comparable, but then I don’t necessarily agree that President Clinton or his administration was wrong in making that deal.

What I really do despise is the use of left wing or right wing (especially when used in a pejorative manner) to label people one disagrees with. If you are going to use these labels, at least have the courtesy to define what you mean by right wing or left wing!

And before you make any further rash statements, I do not consider socialism to be equivalent with communism and any society that expects to stay together must be socialistic to some degree. It is the level of socialism that I might argue with not socialism in and of itself.

 We need to be careful about tossing around phrases like "everyone in the media was shocked" by the Whitewater verdicts. I, for one, was distinctly not shocked. Nor were at least some of my colleagues. Howard Kurtz 

As for the number of Corporate Lawyer millionaires in Congress, well, in the House there were at least 74 new ones after January 1994. Let me just add that in the same way it was an incredible blunder for Bill Clinton, with all his military record problems,to try to lift the gays-in-the-military ban immediately, it was also a big blunder for this Republican Congress to play to sterotype and try to dis mantle environmental law and PBS funding and Head Start right off the bat, not to mention having corporate interests immediately rewriting regulatory law. Richard M. Todaro

I debated whether to put this post here or in the "Church Burning" BB on another page. I decided here since this story concerns how the media chooses to report the story as much as the story itself. Recall the latest church fire in Shreveport, LA, this past Sunday night. The AP had it on the national wire within hours of the occurence. CNN carried the story all day Monday and it was featured on all three network newscasts. Most US newspapers carried the AP story in their Tuesday editions, and "The Times", Shreveport's Gannett paper devoted THREE FULL PAGES to the story. Below, in part, is an article in today's "Times" (6/26/96) following up on the investigation.

"The Times" SHREVEPORT, La., By Don Walker:

"The church fire is included as part of a federal investigation into a rash of 40 suspected arsons at churches throughout the South. A sign designating the Milam Street building as a church was erected last Friday, but no services had ever been held inside the white wood-frame building.

Among those interviewed Tuesday by investigators - for a second time in as many days - was the Rev. Bruce Lee Goss. On Monday, agents with the BATF questioned Goss at length about why no renovations or upkeep had been made on the building, which was purchased in April for $3,500.

Goss said his congregation of about 50 members planned to move into the building in late July. He confirmed Tuesday the church had a $40,000 insurance policy on the building. The policy was effective June 1.

Goss said he does not feel he or any members of his congregation are suspects in the case."

PS:

So far today, the Louisiana AP nor the networks have picked up on this development in the story. It is my opinion that if this fire is a simple insurance fraud arson, the networks or AP will not report it.

What are your thoughts, Howard?

Journalists I've known have said they fight to keep their skepticism from slipping into cynicism. As you can see from the posts here, Mr. Kurtz, and from the dropping readership and audiences to many major media, the consumers of journalistic products would seem to be faced with the same problem.

Committee meetings on the possible misdeeds of Clinton administration staffers are standing room only, while huge policy decisions, such as the possibility of certain trust funds running out of money, are ignored after a day or two of some big announcement. Richard M. Todaro

 As for the earlier posting about Filegate, I think even with the Republicans' obvious effort to throw mud at Clinton in this election year, the FBI files is quite a serious matter, especially as the White House explanations keep falling apart. Howard Kurtz 

2) Do you feel this is proper use of the power of the White House?

3) Did similar "pressure" situations occur in previous administrations?

Leaders such as Mr. Clinton & Co. will be America's lot if we continue on our self-absorbed quest of getting ours from the Federal Government and to hell with the generations that succeed us. Such was not the case when our Founding Fathers risked life and their affluent lifestyles to ensure a country unique on the face of the earth for future Americans.

Would you teach your children that the standards of this Administration are acceptable as long as they become capable leaders? Character is the very essence of leadership. It gives one the moral authority to stand against evil. It is that moral authority that leads the world to look to the U.S.A. as the world's conscience.

Relativism is the slippery slope that liberal humanists have placed us on. The media has certainly had a role in making the unsavory seem the norm on a regular basis. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Character indeed! Let's have a return to it!

When a person writes a note and then clicks on "preview," there is nothing to register approval of the note. When you click on the browser's "Back," the note disappears. What's going on?

Is not the lack of reporting on "...that was a government project, I didn't have anything to do what that." (Presidents reply to Helens question of "..did you know about the Mena drug operation ?" ;AND ,why hasn't the media followed up...especially after the Clinton admin. CUT D.E.A. funding in half when THEY got into office ??

I think it would be helpful for the voting public to focus on the following in the upcoming election.

 1) What are the candidates goals. Are they real, definable, achieveable or are they warm and fuzzy? 

 2) What is their record of achieving their goals. Effective leaders prevail in spite of adversity. They are able to work with or overcome opponents. 

 3) Do they have credibility. Will they do what they have told the public they will do. 

Vagueness and generalities should not go unchallenged by the press. Reputations and careers are not made without a willingness to con- front politicians with the facts.

tabery@gate.net

What I find interesting about your article is not its reliance on White House dismissals of the book's veracity--that your paper relies heavily on the White House Press Office for information is self evident--rather, my attention was drawn not to what constituted the article, but what was left unsaid.

You refer to the Washington Times story "Clinton's wee-hours dash to a romantic tryst." I too read this article and despite its title, the most relevant information therein concerned not alleged sexual impropriety but possible abuse of the Executive Branch by Hillary Clinton.

________"Hillary Rodham Clinton has, in what Mr. Aldrich argues is in violation of the Constitution, assumed presidential

 authority over several offices, including those of the White House counsel, the chief of staff and personnel." - excerpt from "Clinton's wee-hours dash to romance; book tells of how Hillary controls agenda" 

Although you cite Mr. Aldrich's contention that Lloyd Cutler acted as a broker between Hillary and then Candidate Clinton, you fail to mention the alleged results of these negotiations. Which according to the Washington Times consisted of an agreement whereby Hillary would find herself in sole possession of the domestic branch of the Office of the President.

Instead of seriously addressing the charges raised by this book, you turn it into an pharisaical exercise in the adversity the media endures in determining who to believe.

Therein lies the essential problem of media bias today. Choosing who to believe is not an effort solely governed by reason and fact. Affiliation supersedes rationality. And not just at the Post, the Times is equally guilty of excessive bias. These positions reflect the political climate on the hill today, which has become increasingly polarized.

I want to ask you and your other reporters what would you report if your file had been investigated by the likes of Livingstone and his crooked cronies, Bill and Hillary?

I never claimed that Capitalist or libertarian values are not represented, what I stated is that the "mainstream media" leans more to a socialistic view than to either of the previous ( I also believe that they lean much more to a capitalistic view than a libertarian view. I probably should have stated more specifically that it was the "mainstream news media" rather than simply the mainstream media. If we include the entire media then yes it is extremely commercialized.

I wouldn't know if everything is an anecdote to God since I don't even know if God exists and even if he does I've never talked to him (or at least I've never gotten any response back) .

As I said before I agree that the press is first interested in the negative (it's easier to write a negative story that catches the eye and holds interest than to write a positive story that catches the eye and holds the interest of the reader).

I would still like a cite for the number of corporate lawyers in congress that are also millionaires.

If we are going to continue this I would suggest that we do it via e-mail since we are somewhat off the actual subject of this thread.

Sorry it took so long for this response, but I had problems with my home provider and I was gone at the end of last week.

When I used to work for a major magazine in New York, we had a fully staffed research department that would check the facts on everything our magazine printed. This was done thoroughly and was accomplished economically, although admittedly our fact-checkers were bright and persistent. The magazine had a good enough reputation that the author was motivated to cooperate in providing verification of facts.

On this basis, the allegations of Mr. Gary Aldrich, for example, would not get into the pages of our magazine without rigorous fact-checking. If he couldn't document his stories, he would have to go elsewhere, to a tabloid or somewhere that didn't care about such details as facts. Certainly Mr. Aldrich's allegations would not enjoy the stage of implied credibility offered by air time on ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley" (6-30-96) where his non-responses on what proof he had were allowed to slip by as the fast-paced TV show moved on. Did ABC fact-check any of Aldrich's allegations?

Dare I ask whether the excuse of not having time or money to check facts is simply a cover for media's preference to deal with far more entertaining and newsstand-selling "questions raised" instead of facts and answers?

Given the nature of the Aldrich book, we probably wouldn't have ignored it. More likely we would have assigned a writer to go deeper than the mainstream accounts and report on the phenomenon of an FBI agent in the White House who wrote a book full of unsupported gossip and had an ax to grind with President Clinton and went around with an anti-Clinton entourage. We would have explored his motives, found out more about him, learned more about what his agenda was. The angle would probably have been skeptical, not "Duh, gee, I wonder if what he's saying is true. Let's ask him." We would have been skeptical not because we had a political bias but because journalistic standards require credible sourcing of reported information.

We did not use the pages of our magazine as a scribble board for political fantasies for their titillation value, to be checked out later, if ever.

What's happened to fresh investigation and basic research departments in today's major media? If they are too expensive, then perhaps the news business should not be in business, for fact-checking is essential to doing news, is it not?

That in Friday's hearings, Livingstone stated he had never met Vince Foster. So much for Stepy's excuse.

That, as The London Telegraph did print today:

 "US NEWS & World Report disclosed that one way Mr Clinton could elude his minders was by using an underground passage that extended for about 50 yards beneath the White House from the Oval Office to the first family's East Wing residence. The tunnel, built during Ronald Reagan's presidency, was designed to allow the leader to escape from his office in the event of an attack by terrorists." 

The question is, Mr. Kurtz, would the press have been more thorough if this was 1988?

That in Friday's hearings, Livingstone stated he had never met Vince Foster. So much for Stepy's excuse.

That, as The London Telegraph did print today:

 "US NEWS & World Report disclosed that one way Mr Clinton could elude his minders was by using an underground passage that extended for about 50 yards beneath the White House from the Oval Office to the first family's East Wing residence. The tunnel, built during Ronald Reagan's presidency, was designed to allow the leader to escape from his office in the event of an attack by terrorists." 

The question is, Mr. Kurtz, would the press have been more thorough if this was 1988?

However, having said that, on Brinkley's program, George Will did a far more credible job criticizing Aldrich's book then was done by the WH hatchet boy. I should add, that nowhere yet have I read what may be the most important put-down on the bood in question, mamely, that it reflects a cultural clash between the buttoned down FBI type and the unbuttoned, and according to Aldrich, the unpantied and even according to administration supporters, "scruffy" new look in the WH. admittedly

How come the TWP reffers to neo-nazi groups and the ilk as the "racist right"?

The Nazi's were socialists and thus should correctly be called the "racist left".

It picked up a copy of Aldrich's book today and reviewed the section on Coelho. Aldrich's book is critical of Clinton appointing Coelho to a presidential commision on the handicapped because of Coelho's questionable background not because of his medical condition.

After reading Aldrich's book I understand why the Democrats are so eager to smear him. Aldrich paints a picture of a Whitehouse completely unconcerned with security clearances. Which begs the question; If the Whitehouse didn't care about getting their own folks cleared throught the FBI, why were they collecting the files of ex-whitehouse staffers?

The rumors aired in the book are plainly labeled as such. Very similar to the unnamed sources that TWP has cited trying to smear Mr. Aldrich.

Is there any possiblity this group could take a look at the coverage of our presidential race? It would be interesesting to hear what they had to say.

Much ado about nothing.

Certainly, something is seriously wrong with a White House that allows, apparently illegally, 400 or so FBI files to be collected on perceived enemies (i.e. Republicans).

And, without question, Craig Livingstone is a joke and should be an embarassment to the White House.

But, excuse me, have Mr. Gray and Mr. Hassell never heard of the practice of political cronyism? George Bush and Ronald Reagon and countless presidents before them appointed unqualified people to positions of importance and/or authority as payback for campaign work or financial support (Bush pratically sold ambassadorships for campaign contributions in 1988). This is simply how the system works.

There is no grand conspiricy being covered up by the "liberal" media. Instead, you have a bunch of people with a visceral hatred of Clinton screaming hysterically over things that compared to Iran/Contra, or the coddling of Hussein before he became our enemy overnight, pale in comparison.

I bet these people who are sudden defenders of civil liberties kept their mouths shut when it was revealed that the Bush White House had conducted illegal searches into Clinton's passport files, and even enlisted the help of the Major administration in England to search for dirt.

Oh, but that's different right?

Actually, it's crap. And it's practiced by both sides.

But, then again, how can one hope to reason with people who are convinced the President and his wife are murderers? Or that the "media", which in reality represents the elite of corporate America, are involved in a widespread conspiricy to defraud the people of the truth.

Give me a break.

He says that of 73 fires in black churches since 1995, only 20 were motivated by racism. Many of the unsovled cases are believed to be the work of burglars, juveniles, or accidents.

This story follows last Friday's (6/28/96) USA Today story which basically reports the same thing. And both stories have the numbers to back up what they say. It's about damn time.

Mr. Kurtz, my question to you is how was the Elite Media stampeded into reporting that there was a "wave of arson of Southern Black Churches"? Was it reported that way because of what editors and producers wanted to believe? Was the erroneous story spoon fed to the Elite Media by those who have an agenda? And finally, will the Elite Media report these "corrections" as prominently as they did the original?

Let me get this right: ONE insurance official points out that since 1995, only 20 of 73 cases of black church burnings are the result of arson (may we see these stats please?). And he GUESSES the rest are the result of burglaries or juvenile pranks.

Never mind that black churches are IN FACT being burned down virtually every day with only one or two arrests the last couple of months. Never mind that this has been going for several months.

So, Mr. Abott suggests that the media has been "spoon fed" by someone with an agenda. Could this be a not-very-subtle suggestion that those supporting civil rights, or who are opposed to racism, would burn down black churches to make a point about racism?

Or is it the Clintons setting the fires? After all, if they can murder for political gain, they are capable of anything, right?

Thank you Rush Limbaugh for single-handedly dumbing down the nation with lies, distortions, half-truths and conspiricy-minded thinking.

If I'm way off the mark Mr. Abott, then please, enlighten us all as to who you think is responsible for burning down churches while at the same time misleading the nation's media about who is REALLY responsible.

If your answer is provacative enough, maybe you too can end up on David Brinkley.

As for Glenn Hassell's investigative work on the exact asset amounts of the freshmen Republican class, I guess I can't argue with those exact numbers, but it misses the point entirely. First of all, I suppose if we lower the asset requirement to just, say, $500,000, then the number of "millionaires" in the Congress goes way up- such people are still in the top 1% of the national wealth distribution. My point, though, is that this particular Congress makes no secret of its pro-corporate, pro-rich, anti-poor, anti-environmental bent. The midterm elections of 1994 were probably more about the 20% of the electorate who unleashed their fury on President Clinton than about shredding whatever social safety net or environmental protections that have been built up over the past half century. (Reforming is not the same thing as shredding, just as one doesn't "cut" welfare or food stamps in order to balance the budget, since these are two different things entirely.) By overplaying its hand and misinterpreting its mandate, the Congress alone is responsible for its own negative public image.As for the rightwing side of the political spectrum in America, they take no prisoners and they admit no mistakes. Their hatred ot President Clinton has been nuclear since the 1992 campaign. They readily admit, as Mr. Gray did, that Clinton "should never have been president" or that he should be impeached, which they claim doesn't happen because "the Liberal Media" refuses to go after him. So I am supposed to use as my starting point their guilty verdict and punishment decree. Wrapped up into this is all sorts of ideological agendas that I just see as bad for the country- and it is my country as well as their country. Their coopting of Christianity and the flag is breath-takingly arrogant, as is their notion that a free, critical press is supposed to side with ANYONE on any crusade.

Could it be that you expect that Robert J. Dole would not be recognized for who he really is? I hope not.

Lawrence Ison 102711.2016@compuserve.com

I only bring up today what the Associated Press and USA Today reported. Now if you folks can't handle it, I'm sorry. Please look the stories yourself if you don't believe me.

Also, I would appreciate a little more civility in your posts. I've attacked neither of you, and I would be grateful for the same courtesy in return. We can debate the issues (Media coverage) without getting personal.

 Socrates was a leader, he was an intellectual leader. Political leadership 

I am terribly sorry if you interpreted my posting as an "attack."

The reality is if you're going to put ideas out there, then at least be prepared to handle the reponse.

Or, are you like Rush Limbaugh, who won't discuss issues unless it's under circumstances under his complete control?

It appears you feel chagrined at direct responses to your postings, but, come on pal, this is a new age. If you want to hang on the net, then at least have the intellectual courage to defend your shallow accusations.

Oh, I guess that was personal.

Now, how about getting back to the points you raised?

Welcome to the future, my friend.

These reports in no way "prove" that there's a conspiracy to make it seem like the burning of black churches is a conspiracy of "someone with an agenda." So please, spare me the indignent suggestion that I am overlooking facts.

And, in fact, Limbaugh is not irrelevant. Otherwise his books wouldnt sell in the millions.

You know, you guys who constantly complain that the media is "liberal" sure are quick to refer to the stories that suit your ideological aims. At least be consistent, for Christ's sake.

There would appear to be at least two extremes on the net each intent on out yelling the other. The so called right-wing yells about everything being a left-wing conspiracy and the so called left-wing yells about the right-wing trying to hurt everyone and being enemies of the entire earth (if not the universe).

I find it somewhat amusing that the so-called right-wing is also labeled conservative (believes in maintaining the status quo) while at the same time being accused of wanting to change everything. While the so-called left-wing is labeled as liberal (a desire to maximize individual rights while maintaining the level of government needed to maintain a cohesive society) while at the same time they try to prevent any current program from being changed and further try to restrict what individuals are allowed to do.

I have found myself labeled everything from a left-wing commie to a right-wing NAZI fascist (including just about everything in-between. The thing I have found that all extremes have in common is their refusal to see that any of "Our" programs have failed or any of "their" programs have helped (even partially). Also neither side is fond of putting forth concrete proposals for solutions to problems that either they or others find to exist.

When you people decide that you want to have a discussion about what actual problems exist and possible solutions to them, I will be happy to join in. Until that time, feel free to rant on as I w

"I didn't do anything to evade the draft." (1992 (Campaign Speech)

"I will Join the Arkansas ROTC." (To Colonel Jones 1969}

"I will write to you once a Month." (To Col.. Jones)

"I Never attended any Anti War Demonstration." 1992 Campaign Speech"

"Well I did go by a demonstration one day But I never Organized One."

"We lost $68,000 dollars in Whitewater." (Speeches late 93 early 94)

"We only lost $45.000 I found a loan in my mothers Book." (1994)

"I will balance the Budget in 5 years." {1992 (Campaign speeches)

"I will provide a large middle class tax cut." (Campaign Speeches)

"I Can't Give you a tax cut the Deficit is larger than I thought"

"My wife did all her own trades in the Cattle futures." (1994 TV address)

"I remember all those black churches Burning in Arkansas." Recent TV Blurb)

"We had this young Military Man temporarily and he got those files."

"I don't know who hired Craig Livingstone but Hillary didn't."

The Man is a pathological Liar and you and the liberal media can't hide that. The above is a few I recall off the top of my head, The list is well over a hundred lies. You can't defend him and you start harping on what Reagan and Bush done. Well whatever they may have done, is done and they are not running for election. So just remember you can't improve your man's character by harping on what someone else has done.

All of the above elements were reported by the press, whether they devoted the same attention to them as they would have to a Republican candidate is a different question and is really a matter of perception not something that can be proved or disproved.

You call the press liberal, I would be courious what your definition of a liberal is, and what a concervative is.

You would be much better off if you would simply make your specific points without resorting to generalized name calling.

 On an even more important issue, there has actually been a 

Ok, sometimes the postings have a bit of an edge, but come one, that's what makes this medium fun. I would be more likely to agree with you if nastier things were said here, but I don't see that that's the case.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that name-calling and stereotyping is all too frequent in our public dialogues, and admit that I occassionally do it myself. There's nothing wrong, however, in taking a side and arguing it well. Taking a position doesn't mean you are just demonizing the "other side." If, in fact, ideas are dicussed -- and I think that it's clear they have been here -- than no harm is done.

You seem content on only commenting on the style of the postings as opposed to what's actually said in them. So what does that make you? I guess I'll refrain from name-calling.

As for Mr. Gray, I never said that Bill Clinton was my hero, or that I find his shifting all over the place admirable. Bill Clinton has lied and he continues to lie. No new story there. But really, can't you see the silliness of your argument that the media is liberal when you in fact quote many of the stories that the media has reported about Bill Clinton?

What is it that you want the media to do, exactly, physically remove Clinton from the White House?

I'll say it again: those who have a visceral hatred of Clinton, and there seems to be quite a few, are blinded to the fact that Bill Clinton has been exposed BY the media as shallow and shifty. Not the other way around.

Good day friends.

I agree with Mr. Kurtz when he says that the FBI file story is probably a big one, and may do damage to the Clinton administration. However, I have a hard time listening to the righteous indignation of those on the right over this story. These are the same people who have accused the President of the most ghastly and macabre allegations since he first appeared on the national scene four years ago. These allegations and rumor-mongering have not been confined to those on the extreme right, the modern day Know Nothings. When the Wall Street Journal daily spews out the most hysterical diatribes against Clinton and when House Majority leader Armey is on the record as saying that President Clinton is "not our President", or when Jesse Helms tells us that the President had better not go down to North Carolina, then it is a little difficult to feel their new pain over the FBI files, even though this is a legitimate controversy.

An interesting question was asked by Margaret Warner of the ever fatuous Strobe "Strobe" Talbott last night: Doesn't the constant cheerleading of Russia's nationally televised news shows for candidate Yeltsin signify a weakness in their democratic process? Talbott's answer (paraphrased): No. --- Imagine my surprise!

Your producer and others, were after all, my close friends. I heard about every single detail of your actions both in front of the mike and when it was "off." It makes for some interesting stories!

MY show was a mental "bullring," a place where I stood with my gloves on, waiting for any and all to climb into the ring and have either thoughtful discussions, or to simply "duke it out." As you know well, I was ready and eager every time to take on anyone who wanted to go a couple of rounds...and oftentimes, more.

Both you and Rollins, and others such as Rush Limbaugh, are exactly what media critics point to - "hosts" who limit discussion, and search through the available callers to find people who support you or could take the direction of the discussion into areas where the likes of you felt comfortable.

That's COWARDICE of the first order, my dear friend. Elitist, too. Just like the "haughty hosts" on NPR...especially the "First Lady of the Georgtown white wine and brie set."

There is a huge difference between journalists, including myself, who get out of the office, and the silly cocktail parties, and go to see what's happening in the world as the news breaks wide open. I certainly don't remember seeing you in Bosnia, in the hell-fires of Kuwait at liberation, at the Berlin Wall when it was torn down, and many other places.

Some people try to run a show off nothing more than cocktail conversations with their dear, and similar friends. Others, like myself, open our mouths and voice opinions based on both first-hand knowledge of the issues, and extensive "backgrounding" at the highest levels. After all, the audience deserves no less than that.

It's a matter of personal honor, and professional credibility. Better luck next time, pal.

I will be back on the air soon, on a National, rather than regional basis. I'll have my network publicity department fax you with the details when the time for the announcement comes, and soon.

For all of MY listeners, hang on. We are far from done!

Now when I demonstrate that Clinton has no Credibility you basically agree on that and Many of the Lies I quoted in my message are refuted by A letter Written and Signed by Bill Clinton on December 3, 1969. The Washington Post, the New York Times CNN and others had access to that letter. Did they ever publish that letter?

I don’t expect the Media to do anything but investigate and report the news accurately and fair. The Media was not being fair when the Washington Post withheld for months the Paula Jones story Just as they are not being fair when they report a Black Church Burning as big news and When a White church burns it seldom gets mentioned. When the Media is forced to Mention Bill Clinton’s Anti War Demonstrations it is always “alleged Demonstrations.” When The Liberal Media (those that aren’t Right Wing Conservative since you ask) Writes about Bob Dole (Robert J. Dole in the Washington Post) or Newt Gingrich they always go into detail about where he was and what he was doing when he made the statement. That is Bias Media anyway you cut it. Now some one has woke them up on the fact that Bob (Robert J. Dole) is not the only one that accepts campaign contributions from the Tobacco Industry. The New York times actually had a story this morning about the Democrats accepting Tobacco money. CNN is doing a Story on it and I think I saw a by line somewhere else.

I don’t know why anyone has to question that Media Bias exist. All you have to do is read one Issue of the LA Times the Washington Post, the New York times or watch CNN or any if the Broadcast for 15 minutes of news.

Please do not respond by telling me about something George Bush is alleged to have done.

I never said I hate Bill Clinton but I hate all Liars and since you have admitted Bill Clinton is a liar I guess you assumed that included him.

AS for the media reporting these and not being bias I ask you how many of those they ever reported with putting the word alleged before it, Did you see any of them print or show his famous letter to Colonel Jones written from England December 3, 1969. Just which of the lises that I mentioned do you think he didn’t know was a lie when he told it. I gather you don’t believe he lied acouple of weeks ago when he told us he remembered those Black Churches Burning in Arkansas back in the 60s and 70s. The media sure shut that up in a hurry after they found no churches were burned. That same media repeats Bob Doles statement about Nicotine being Addictive. Frankly I have to agree with Dole as I smoked of 40 years about 3 packages a day and I quit cold turkey. I had a problem breaking the habit of having one in my hand or burning on the ash tray. I would Catch my self driving down the highway and feeling for a pack of cigarettes for a number of years and for along time when I left my desk or office I checked to make sure thare was not and cigarette burning in the ashtray. There was no ash tray there.

As for liberal media, I don’t believe I ever heard of a newspaper that didn’t editorialize and I have no problems if they want to do an editorial everyday supporting Bill Clinton or opposing Bob Dole. I do have a problem when they print or show what is suppose to be news and add or omitt certain things to make the news more favorable to their editorial view.

I have always belived that media that editorialized for a liberal candidate was considered liberal and those that Editorialized for a Conserative were Conservitive media. Do you have a problem with that characterization

Forty years of goverment expansion under a Democratic congress that has spent this country into Bankruptacy is the best example of extream Liberalism. One Websters Dictionary has an example of Conservative as “If it was good enough for my Grandfather it is good enough for me.” Think about that from the standpoint of government. During the first 160 years of this country we grew from nothing into the greatest Nation in The world. Was financially strong enough to help rebuild the world after World War 2. Now we are %5 trillion Debt and still spendint annuall at a rate of almost $1.7 trillion per year. Over half of that spending is for entitlements that didn’t exist 60 years ago. That is extreme Conservativism but I am convinced we will continue our decline in World standing unless we start in that direction.

Items on the List,

 "I didn't do anything to evade the draft." (I doubt that he believes that he did anything to "evade" the draft) "I will Join the Arkansas ROTC." (He intended to if he thought he would be drafted} "I will write to you once a Month." (I don’t know) "I Never attended any Anti War Demonstration." (If he said this then it was a lie) "Well I did go by a demonstration one day But I never Organized One." (same as above) "We lost $68,000 dollars in Whitewater." (I would give him the benifit of the doubt on this) "We only lost $45.000 I found a loan in my mothers Book." (same as above) {"I will balance the Budget in 5 years." {1992 (Campaign speeches) "I will provide a large middle class tax cut." (Campaign Speeches) "I Can't Give you a tax cut the Deficit is larger than I thought" } I don’t treat campaign promises in the same context, most if not all politions will honor their campaign promises if it is convient, if it turns out not to be convient then they will either drop or modify them. "My wife did all her own trades in the Cattle futures." (He may have thought that) "I remember all those black churches Burning in Arkansas."(He may have had these memories (false that they are)) "We had this young Military Man temporarily and he got those files."(Was this President Clinton or one of his "spokesmen"?) "I don't know who hired Craig Livingstone but Hillary didn't." (I haven’t seen any evidence one way or another) 

The Washington Post printed an article about the discrepancy concerning the church burnings, would they have done more if it had been a Republican, I don’t know.

That same media repeats Bob Doles statement about Nicotine being Addictive. Frankly I have to agree with Dole as I smoked of 40 years about 3 packages a day and I quit cold turkey. This is a case of using improper words, there is no doubt that smoking doe tend to create a psychological dependancy for those that smoke for an extended period of time, I also would dispute the use of the term addiction or else it should also be applied to coffee, tea, coke, asprin, etc. As for why it is constantly harped on in the media, partially due to their biases but also and perhaps more importantly due to the fact that it is a contentious issue that is easy to generate stories about. Note that the Washington Times aslo has many stories about the smoking issue and the Times is hardly a "liberal" or "leftest" newspaper.

<>

I would tend to rate a paper more on their news stories than on their editoral section. But this still does not answer the question of what constitutes liberal as opposed to concervative?

Forty years of goverment expansion under a Democratic congress that has spent this country into Bankruptacy is the best example of extream Liberalism. One Websters Dictionary has an example of Conservative as "If it was good enough for my Grandfather it is good enough for me." Think about that from the standpoint of government. During the first 160 years of this country we grew from nothing into the greatest Nation in The world. Was financially strong enough to help rebuild the world after World War 2. Now we are %5 trillion Debt and still spendint annuall at a rate of almost $1.7 trillion per year. Over half of that spending is for entitlements that didn’t exist 60 years ago. That is extreme Conservativism but I am convinced we will continue our decline in World standing unless we start in that direction.

If I used that definition, I would have to be a Democrat in order to be "Conservative" since my grandfather on my father’s side was a Democrat. (My grandfather on my mothers side was French so that means that I would have to support the social entitlements in order to qualify for being conservative.) My daughter would have to be in favor of the Democrats and the social entitlements since both sets of grandparents were.

What I said was that Bill Clinton will say whatever he thinks will make him perpetually "politically viable." That doesn't mean that he is a "pathological liar" all the time. My disdain for politicians like Bill Clinton, or a Bob Dole or a George Bush, is that they refuse to confront honestly the issues most citizens care about.

The only person I have seen of late that tells the true extent of our nation's problems (with Social Security, Medicare, our deficit, et al) is Ross Perot. A kook, I grant you, but at least he speaks honestly about our problems without worrying about being perceived as "negative" or anti-American or unpatriotic and so on. I suspect this is why he received 20 percent of the nation's vote.

As far as your raving about the burning of white churches, I think it's clear what your bias is on the issue. Yes, yes, of course, it's only "news" to the "liberal" media when a black church is burned down. When a white church is burned, liberal reporters break out their finest cigars and brandy and celebrate what a great country this is. Congrats, Mr. Gray, you've uncovered yet another insidious conspiricy of the left.

So, Mr. Gray, what planet did you say you were from?

That is the kind of myopia which afflicts our media. None have taken positions on a campaign staff therefore they are not biased. But as I and many others have said, is it not strange that Republicans are hens teeth among them, and Democrats like the hairs on the head. Ah, but they are fairminded. Didn't some even let Gary Aldrich get on the air. Perhaps, Mr. Kurtz, you would like to reply to Brent Bozell's column comparing the treatment of Aldrich with that given to authors who, with no more data, smeared Nancy Reagan and Clarence Thomas.

has buried file-gate on the back page of the Busines section; so

obviously it's something y'all wish would go away.

why were the files from A thru GO examined by the white house.

were all these a red-herring for the file they really wanted to

look at? What other names are between A and GO besides

Foster, Vince? very interesting

bob hamilton, 1011 newberry, richardson, texas 75080-4913

intense attacks on William Saffire's characterization of Hillary

as a 'congenital liar' seemed to center on his choice of adjective

and concede the noun?

Congrats, sir, you win, hands down, for jerk-off posting of the month.

You and Mr. Gray should start your own club. I'll suggest a title for your little tea and crumpets group: "Morons for Rush Limbaugh."

Why don't you go where your welcome: to hell.

I'm tired of the stupid -- JM

Couldn't see right through your crap, oh no!

Why don't you go and post your manipulative bull**** elsewhere, you piece of S**t.

Do you really think we're that stupid, you f*****g moron.

You idiots think you are so smart.

Guess again.

>Oh Jerry.

>Couldn't see right through your crap, oh no!

>Why don't you go and post your manipulative bull****

>elsewhere, you piece of S**t.

>Do you really think we're that stupid, you f*****g moron.

>You idiots think you are so smart.

>Guess again.

John, watch it your blood pressure is getting to high.

The first thing you have to do is realize that anyone who doesn't agree with you is neither Stupid nor Idiots.

The 2nd thing you need to do is realize you can not defend Bill Clinton by attacking those trying to get out the truth about him.

If You can't stand the heat You need to get out of the kitchen.

WHO HIRED CRAIG LIVINGSTONE

Come up with an answer other than a dead guy and we may find out what REALLY happened with the FBI files.

I apologize for my two previous hostile postings.

While I believe this type of forum should be open and even have an edge to it, I obviously crossed the line.

Next time I'm in a surly mood I will simply sign-off.

Hope there's no hard feelings.

C'mon, you really think you can use Hitler and Nazi Germany as a parallel to the Clintons? First of all, the Clintons are hardly fascists; second, the U.S. is not recovering from a major economic upheaval (which helps explain Hitler's rise); and thirdly, the Clintons, despite what many of you believe, did not murder their way to the top or preach a gospel of hatred.

(Okay, for those of you who think the Clintons are murderers, let's see some proof. Or, are they "master" killers, unable to be tracked?)

I'm in agreement with you that the White House had no right to have political opponenents' FBI files. And I do think the Clinton's were probably involved in some shady financial deals (but, as Dennis Milller says: "c'mon, its Arkansas for Chirst's sake."). But comparing them to some of the most evil characters in human history is surely going overboard. And it's just plain bad use of history.

What I would like to know is why has this President and his spouse become the most viscerally hated people in America on forums like these? Why is it that they seem to bring out real nastiness in people who disagree with them? Now THAT would be an interesting book (as opposed to Aldrich's unsubtantiated rumour-mongering).

Shouldn't the question be "Are the media doing their jobs" instead of "Is the media doing its job?"

I realize that usage evolves, but the mere fact that many make the error of assuming that "media" is singular doesn't make it proper English. Proper grammar isn't determined by the lowest common denominator.

From the 60s to present, most discussions became face to face verbal arguments/discussions. In these a persons emotions were activated to a greater degree than when discussions occurred over longer distances using the written word. Now, we again are communicating via the written word but we seem to be, at least for now, responding in the same manner as we would in a face to face discussion/argument. Even though writing allows us time to reflect on what we are going to say and to review what we have said before we actually post the item, we seem to ignore this capability and start to shout. Have people lost the ability to have a reflective discourse via written word or have the skills and mindset merely atrophied? If it is simply a case of atrophy, then time should reverse this trend.

One thing that might speed up the process is to refuse to respond to posters that react in this way until they learn to post a civil discourse. I know that people hate to see such things posted without responding, but consider, the fringes (on both sides) are not going to be changed by any comments that you make, those people that desire to have a civil conversation will simply ignore the ravings from any fringe.

Changing the subject only a little, I was somewhat intrigued by talk show person Michael Barone's comparison of the Democratic leanings of today's media with the Republican leanings of the newspapers in the 30's and 40's: the imbalance is almost the same. His point was that that didn't stop the people from electing Democrats then or Republicans now. I find it hard to be so sanguine. I believe the subliminal effect of the smirking network anchors and correspondents exerts a propagandizing effect any statist politician would kill for. I hope Barone is right and I'm just a snob.

"When they came for the Jews I didn't protest because I wasn't Jewish. When they came for the Catholics, I did not protest because I was not Catholic , When they came for me, there was no one left to protest." Pastor Niemoller

Reprinted with permission of The Washington Times (www.washtimes.com)

Insult to Clinton leads to 2

 arrests; Secret Service sics cops on couple 

 By Ruth Larson THE WASHINGTON TIMES 

 Chicago-area couple were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and interrogated for more than 12 hours last week, simply because the woman told President Clinton exactly what she thought of him. Last Tuesday, Mr. Clinton made an impromptu stop at the "Taste of Chicago" festival in Grant Park at midafternoon. According to her husband, Patricia Mendoza, angered and upset by the recent deaths of 19 U.S. airmen in Saudi Arabia, told the president, "You suck, and those boys died!" Once the president left the area, Secret Service agents and Chicago police converged on Mrs. Mendoza and accused her of threatening the president, a charge her husband, Glenn, vehemently denies. 

 "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if my wife had threatened the president -- which she did not -- I can guarantee we wouldn't have been locked up on charges of disorderly conduct," the Westchester, Ill., man told The Washington Times in a telephone interview last night. Mr. Mendoza served in the Navy for 4 1/2 years, and he was on a ship off the Lebanese coast when the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut killed 241 Marines and sailors. "I didn't sit on an aircraft carrier for four years to be railroaded by a bunch of Secret Service agents," he said. Secret Service spokesman Ar nette Heintze said: "People don't get locked up just for saying, 'You suck.' You could say that all day long and it's not a violation of law or local ordinances." Mr. Heintze insisted that Mrs. Mendoza "made a threatening statement" to the president, but he refused to elaborate, saying that the matter was under investigation. "It's a situation that happens from time to time, but it's something we take very seriously," he said. The incident sparked a media frenzy in Chicago but had yet to surface on the East Coast until radio talk-show host G. Gordon Liddy discussed it on his nationally syndicated program yesterday. Mr. Liddy told The Times: "I think it's outrageous. Everybody agrees that if there's a threat, the Secret Service clearly can detain the individuals and do an investigation. "But 'You suck, those boys died' is not a threat. It's an expression of anger, contempt or ridicule. It's wrong for the Secret Service to detain someone if there's no threat," he said. Mr. Mendoza, who owns a small electronics firm, and his wife were at the festival with their employees, unaware that the president was coming. Suddenly, he recalled, the Secret Service descended on the park, throwing up barriers and preventing anyone from leaving the area. A black car drove up, Mr. Clinton leaped out and began shaking hands with onlookers, and Mrs. Mendoza found herself face to face with the president, Mr. Mendoza said. Mr. Clinton shook her hand and she reacted by pulling it back and telling him, "You suck, those boys died," Mr. Mendoza said. He said the president looked at her, then motioned to an assistant as he moved along the rest of the line. "He wasn't pleased," Mr. Mendoza said. Soon afterward, Mr. Mendoza said, Secret Service agents began accusing his wife of threatening the president's life. At that point, he said, he began directing his wife: "Trish, don't say anything. We need a lawyer." An officer told him to shut up and he responded, "Screw you. I have a right to tell my wife to get a lawyer when she's getting interrogated by the Secret Service," Mr. Mendoza said. He concluded, "The fact is, I was arrested because I was swearing at my wife." Chicago police arrested the couple at the request of the Secret Service. The Mendozas were questioned until their release on personal-recognizance bond at 4 a.m. Mr. Mendoza denied any political ill will toward Mr. Clinton. "I'm apolitical. I was in the military, had a good record, have a wife and two kids, a small business," he said. But he fears the incident will be exaggerated because of election-year politics and the Democratic National Convention coming to Chicago next month. "They're making us look like Bonnie and Clyde, Republican poster children. And that's not who we are," Mr. Mendoza said. 

That's the kind of garbage the public has to sift through every day. Yet despite all the media's distortions and omissions, the burden of assessing the reliability of a news story rests with us, not you. We can't change you, so we have to become more savvy information consumers.

To help citizens survive in a sea of hype we must supply them with the tools to recognize cant and propaganda when they see it. This requires that we provide better rhetorical education in our public schools. It's the fourth "R" we need to teach our kids.

I would start by trying to offer a simple unbiased answer to a question you raised in your post to Mr. Stafford which read as follows;

"What I would like to know is why has this President and his spouse become the most viscerally hated people in America on forums like these? Why is it that they seem to bring out real nastiness in people who disagree with them?"

In my opinion the Clintons Problems you talk about were brought on by there own actions which have provided ample fuel for the fire created by their antagonists. Start with Gennifer Flowers, had he not denied knowing her in the beginning and he an Hillary simply made their famous appearance on 60 minutes and made there statement about having had problems in their marriage but that it was now behind them, This would have been a dead issue and the tapes would never have made the news. Had he said like most kids in that era I tried pot but never really used it that would have been another dead issue just as it was with Al Gore. Had he simply said of his draft dodging, I got a deferral while attending Oxford and by the time I came home the draft was over, that would have been a dead issue just as it was and s for many other politicians. Instead he managed to keep it in the news for a month by revealing a little more information every few days. Somebody finally dropped the Col. Jones letter which really fueled the fire.

He waffled on Haiti & Bosnia, the Boat people and on and on. Every thing questioned about the White House brought at least 4 different responses from, Travel Gate, Helicopter golf, Airport closed for haircut, to the most recent FBI files has been prolonged by the different versions of the story coming from the White House. The man delivers a fine state of the union address telling us how he believes in the need for smaller government then vetoes every bill that cut more than one individual from the payroll.

I will readily admit that others may have done just as much and maybe more but they made one statement at the most and it didn’t drag out for months. For the past year, neither Bill Clinton nor his wife Hillary have made a single public statement of any substance that didn’t contradict something they had said or advocated in the past.

Try all you want to bash Richard Nixon, but there was not nearly as much to bash him about as the Clintons have provided us. Also had Nixon said so what everybody spies on the opposition in a political campaign it would have died and he would have served out his term. Both he and the Clintons have given meaning to the old adage “The More You Stir Sh** The Worse It Stinks.” Since I disagree with Mr. Clintons policies I have done and will continue to do my part of the stirring.

I don’t think people hate the Clintons any more than they hate any other candidate they oppose it is simply the fact they have provided all of us with more more Sh** to stir.

In fact we have to teach rhetoric to our kids on a daily basis. I encourage my son and daughter to be aware of the hyperbole and gross generalizations of Limbaugh, the evasive lawyerly tropes of HRC, the "River City" con jobs of Bill Clinton, and the twists and turns of headline writers and network news talkers who take a body of facts and create a "story" almost exactly opposite in meaning from the logical result of analysis of said facts. I can now extend my list of "watch fors" thanks to you, Mr. Parker.

I'll bet your note is something the other pots and kettles on this discussion group can actually agree on!

 The reason the Times barely touched the Gary Aldrich book, I'd 

 Howard Kurtz 

 I agree that the media should pursue the Chicago arrest of a woman 

 Finally, one writer is correct on a mistake that even many 

 Howard Kurtz 

Any comments on the "Viper militia" case? I understand that Ted Kopel said on Nightline that the media blew it.

If I remember correctly, Kitty Kelley's trash about Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra was FRONT PAGE in the NYT.

Also: how come the last artice, by the Post, on the FBI files was on July 3rd (according to the Post search engine)? What about the redacted files sent to Clinger. Or the "Big Brother" data base in the White House basement with 200,000 names. The odd resume of Craig Livingstone? The pictures that have been popping up all over television showing Livingstone at play with BC and GS (golly, I just can't remember who he is). Tsk Tsk

There is a very real pattern of abuse by Bill Clinton. That abuse is not confined to political foes, but extends to Joe Six-Pack. Consider:

Over 1,000 FBI files and counting......

1992 (Source: http://www.mediadist.com/cs/ww/people/Rush_Limbaugh_Confirms_William_Kelly_Story.htm

A chap named William Kelley attended a town meeting with the President. He noticed that all the questions were softballs, so he worked his way to the mike and "asked the President why, when he had promised a middle class tax cut to the American people in the 1992 elections, he had gone back on his promise. That was it. No threats."

Clinton responded badly, and lost his temper.

"Kelly went home and three hours later, the Secret Service arrived at his door. They arrested him for having caused a disruption in the presence of the President of the United States. They handcuffed him, put him in leg irons and hauled him off to jail. Kelly couldn't believe it. All he had done was ask a legitimate question of the President of the United States. "

Then there's the Mendoza's

Source: The Washington Times 7/11/96 The national news media are ignoring the story of the couple who were arrested July 2 after one of them reportedly told President Clinton, "You suck," during his visit Chicago, the attorney for Patricia and Glenn Mendoza complained. "There was no charge of threatening the president," said Ed Vrdolyak, speaking on the Mark Davis radio talk show in Dallas. "It's obvious she did no such thing. I don't think there's any doubt that the president saw to it that this woman was arrested. He took the time to arrange it. We have it on videotape."

Thanks

Archived Discussions are "read only" which means you cannot post a note to them.

To continue to participate in the "Talk to Howard Kurtz, Media Reporter" discussion

Click on the link below, then make sure to "Bookmark" the URL to keep updated.

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/visible/aca-1/_w/dispatch-w.cgi/NatlMedia/browse/thread/d/decreasing/d/0/100213

Nancie Meng WashingtonPost.com Interactivity Manager

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZMSxedKrrWiPlZelcJXMmp6eq19mhXl8j2ploayd